Author: Jonathan Neville

In the New Testament, the Jewish scribes and Pharisees are portrayed negatively, to say the least.

But does that mean they had bad intentions? Were they trying to do the wrong thing, to subvert their own religion, to defy God?

No.

They had been trained from their youth to study the scriptures and strictly adhere to the law, as they understood it.

They “searched the scriptures,” not realizing that they testified of the very Christ who lived among them. Their study kept them from recognizing Christ because the interpretations they had learned their whole lives were deeply imprinted on their minds.

They could not “unsee” their own ideas of what Christ would be like. They had expectations, based on the scriptures. There was a scholarly consensus.

They couldn’t be wrong.

They were the experts.

The PhDs of their day.

And they convinced themselves they were doing the right thing because they had developed their consensus from the text itself.

Can we blame them for following the traditions of their fathers (and their teachers)?
_____

We have a similar situation today in the Church.

Many of our best LDS scholars believe their own interpretations of the text of the Book of Mormon instead of the declarations of the prophets and apostles. They, like the scribes and Pharisees in New Testament times, have developed a scholarly consensus based on their interpretation of the text.

They claim they have the best, most accurate interpretation of the text, which allows them to produce a fantasy map to teach BYU and CES students, based on their M2C interpretation.

That’s because they “can’t unsee” Mesoamerica in the text.

They have, with their eloquence, persuaded thousands of LDS people to also reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

They have established M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) as the default (unofficial) position of the Church regarding the Hill Cumorah.

Because they have trained thousands of Church members to believe M2C–including most Church employees–they have managed to incorporate their dogma into Church media, visitors centers, etc.
_____

When we understand that the Biblical scribes and Pharisees were doing what they believed was correct, based on their traditions and their adherence to their interpretation of their sacred texts, we are more empathetic. But our empathy does not cause us to accept what they taught. Instead, we follow the Savior and his Apostles.

In our day, we are also empathetic with the latter-day scribes and Pharisees who are also doing what they believe is correct, based on their traditions and their adherence to their interpretations of our sacred texts. But our empathy does not cause us to accept M2C.

Instead, we follow the prophets and apostles, who have consistently and repeatedly taught that Cumorah is in New York.
_____

There’s a simple cure for the approach of the scribes and Pharisees.

Just read President Cowdery’s Letter VII.

You can read it in Joseph Smith’s own history here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/83

Then read the teachings of the prophets and apostles who have consistently and unanimously taught that Cumorah is in New York. You can read Articles of Faith by Elder James E. Talmage or A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by Elder LeGrand Richards. You can read or listen to conference talks on the topic and lots of other sources.

Finally, decide whether you want to believe the prophets and apostles or instead you want to believe the latter-day scribes and Pharisees who promote M2C.

M2C–the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory–is the favorite theory of some LDS intellectuals today, but it was not always popular.

In the 1960s, the Church formally disavowed it, as I’ll show below.

Today, you see it everywhere, from the North Visitors Center on Temple square to the splash page of BYU Studies (at the bottom of the page, under “Popular Pages,” click on “Charting the Book of Mormon,” then scroll down to “Plausible Locations of the Final Battles.”

It looks like this:

BYU Studies teaches M2C

Notice, the New York Cumorah is nowhere to be seen.

The narrative reads, “The hill Ramah/Cumorah, upon which both the Jaredites and Nephites fought their last battles (see Ether 15:11; Mormon 6:4–6), is shown here on the northwestern edge of the Tuxtla Mountains in Mexico, about ninety miles from a narrow pass (see Mormon 3:5). Other Jaredite locations, including Omer’s flight to Ramah (see Ether 9:3), are also shown here. Again, these locations are plausible, but not definite.”

By implication (and by explicit declaration if you read the works of the intellectuals), New York is not even a plausible location for the Hill Cumorah.

And, of course, BYU and CES students are taught the same thing with the fantasy map at BYU, which you can see here: http://bom.byu.edu/

In my view, New York is not only a plausible location, it’s the only location for the Hill Cumorah. One reason, of course, is because of Letter VII and the unanimous statements of every prophet and apostle who has spoken publicly about the issue. But other reasons are the geology, geography, history, anthropology, and archaeology relevant to that location.
_____

In the 1960s, the Presiding Bishopric sent out a monthly newsletter titled The Messenger about Church policy, activities, and statistics. (They even published the average fast offering donation for each stake in the Church, setting up some friendly competition).

Here is the article from newsletter for July 1960. Notice the last line: “This concept of two Cumorahs should not be taught as official Church doctrine.”

This is particularly interesting because it addresses the mere “inference” that there are two “Hills Cumorah.”

Now, BYU Studies isn’t satisfied with an “inference.” It outright teaches the M2C theory.

And, as we’ve seen, the North Visitors Center right on Temple Square teaches M2C.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/12/yes-they-do-teach-two-cumorahs-theory.html
_____

Quibblers might respond by saying “The concept of one Cumorah in New York should not be taught as official Church doctrine.”

Except if that’s the case, someone forgot to tell Joseph Smith, William Smith, Don Carlos Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, James E. Talmage, LeGrand Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, Mark E. Petersen, etc.
_____

Lately, I’ve had people say they are “open” to the idea that these prophets and apostles were correct.

Seriously?

We’re good if we’re merely “open” to that idea?

Maybe that’s intended as an indication of an open mind, but the phrase has a connotation of a burden of proof; i.e., we think the prophets and apostles are wrong, but we’re “open” to the idea that maybe they were correct.

I suppose it’s better to be “open” to the idea that the prophets and apostles are correct, but to reach that point, if we are believing, faithful members who sustain Church leaders, we had to first be “open” to the idea that they were wrong and were thereby misleading both members of the Church and the world at large.

Consequently, I don’t see it as a big “concession” to be “open” to the idea that the prophets and apostles were correct. But, considering that promoters of M2C insist the prophets and apostles were wrong, I suppose the new approach of being “open” to the idea that they were correct is at least a move in the right direction.

This enables them to assert what they consider to be their academic superiority as greater authority than what the prophets and apostles have clearly taught from the beginning of the restoration.

Of course, I’m referring to FairMormon, BYU Studies, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, BYU and CES faculty, etc.

For example, these intellectuals reject Letter VII as merely the “opinion” or “speculation” of President Cowdery, who, at the time, was the ordained Assistant President of the Church, writing with the assistance of Joseph Smith, President of the Church.

It doesn’t matter that President Cowdery and President Smith were called and ordained as prophets and apostles; these men were, according to the intellectuals, merely farmers speculating about an obscure hill in New York.

It doesn’t matter that President Cowdery and President Smith had actually visited Mormon’s depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York; no, these men were, according to the intellectuals, merely farmers speculating about an obscure hill in New York.

It doesn’t matter that in these letters, President Cowdery and President Smith specifically distinguished between fact and speculation; no, these men were, according to the intellectuals, merely farmers speculating about an obscure hill in New York.

Etc.
_____

Okay, you already know this.

What you may not realize is how carefully other prophets and apostles have also distinguished between the certainty about Cumorah and the speculation about the rest of the geography.

This is the point that our LDS intellectuals keep trying to obscure. 

They want you to believe that because the prophets and apostles have noted that there is uncertainty about the location of Lehi’s landing, the land southward, Zarahemla, the River Sidon, etc., that means there is also uncertainty about where Cumorah is.

That is not, and has never been, the case. This alleged “uncertainty” about Cumorah is purely an invention of latter-day scribes and Pharisees who have determined, based on their own wisdom, education, and bias confirmation, that all of the prophets and apostles were wrong.

Former “Missionary Reference Library”

Today’s example is from Elder James E. Talmage’s Articles of Faith. This book was included in the “Missionary Reference Library” for many years.

It is not included in the current “Missionary Reference Library” presumably because the current generation doesn’t read as much.

Current “Missionary Reference Library”

Or maybe it was removed because Articles of Faith, like A Marvelous Work and a Wonder which also used to be in the Missionary Reference Library, both affirm Letter VII by teaching, unambiguously, that Cumorah is in the New York, which contradicts the intellectuals’ Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

Here’s the passage from Articles of Faith that describes the people and places of the Book of Mormon. The entire passage is taken directly from the book as it is found in Gospelink. The parts in red are declarative, unambiguous statements about geography. The parts in blue are speculative. This same distinction is found throughout the teachings of the prophets and apostles, including the 1879 footnotes in the official editions of the Book of Mormon itself.

Elder Talmage and others mark the distinction with phrases such as “it appears,” “it is believed,” “it is traditionally believed,” “probably,” etc. None of these qualifiers have been used by the prophets and apostles with respect to the Hill Cumorah in New York, however.
_____

Talmage, Articles of Faith:

The Nephite Nation was the later, and in point of the fulness of the records, the more important. The progenitors of this people were led from Jerusalem in the year 600 B.C., by Lehi, a Jewish prophet of the tribe of Manasseh. His immediate family, at the time of their departure from Jerusalem, comprised his wife Sariah, and their sons Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi; at a later stage of the history daughters are mentioned, but whether any of these were born before the family exodus we are not told. Beside his own household, the colony of Lehi included Zoram and Ishmael, the latter an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. 4 Ishmael, with his family, joined Lehi’s company in the wilderness, and his descendants were numbered with the nation of whom we are speaking. It appears that the company journeyed somewhat east of south, keeping near the borders of the Red Sea; then, changing their course to the eastward, crossed the peninsula of Arabia; and there, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, built and provisioned a vessel in which they committed themselves to divine care upon the waters. It is believed that their voyage must have carried them eastward across the Indian Ocean, then over the Pacific to the western coast of America, whereon they landed about 590 B.C. The landing place is not described in the book itself with such detail as to warrant definite conclusions.

The people established themselves on what to them was the land of promise; many children were born, and in the course of a few generations a numerous posterity held possession of the land. After the death of Lehi a division occurred, some of the people accepting as their leader, Nephi, who had been duly appointed to the prophetic office; while the rest proclaimed Laman, the eldest of Lehi’s sons, as their chief. Thenceforth the divided people were known as Nephites and Lamanites respectively. At times they observed toward each other a semblance of friendly relations; but generally they were opposed, the Lamanites manifesting implacable hatred and hostility toward their Nephite kindred. The Nephites advanced in the arts of civilization, built large cities, and established prosperous commonwealths; yet they often fell into transgression, and the Lord chastened them by permitting their hereditary enemies to be victorious. It is traditionally believed that they spread northward, occupying a considerable area in Central America, and then expanded eastward and northward over part of what is now the United States of America. The Lamanites, while increasing in numbers, fell under the curse of divine displeasure; they became dark in skin and benighted in spirit, forgot the God of their fathers, lived a wild nomadic life, and degenerated into the fallen state in which the American Indians—their lineal descendants—were found by those who rediscovered the western continent in later times.

The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D. The last Nephite representative was Moroni, who, wandering for safety from place to place, daily expecting death from the victorious Lamanites, wrote the concluding parts of the Book of Mormon, and hid the record in Cumorah. It was this same Moroni who, as a resurrected being, gave the records into the hands of Joseph Smith in the present dispensation.

The Jaredite Nation—Of the two nations whose histories constitute the Book of Mormon, the first in order of time consisted of the people of Jared, who followed their leader from the Tower of Babel at the time of the confusion of tongues. Their history was written on twenty-four plates of gold by Ether, the last of their prophets, who, foreseeing the destruction of his people because of their wickedness, hid away the historic plates. They were afterward found, about B.C. 122, by an expedition sent out by King Limhi, a Nephite ruler. The record engraved on these plates was subsequently abridged by Moroni, and the condensed account was attached by him to the Book of Mormon record; it appears in the modern translation under the name of the Book of Ether.

The first and chief prophet of the Jaredites is not specified by name in the record as we have it; he is known only as the brother of Jared. Of his people we learn that, amidst the confusion of Babel, Jared and his brother importuned the Lord that they and their associates be spared from the impending disruption. Their prayer was heard, and the Lord led them with a considerable company, who, like themselves, were free from the taint of idolatry, away from their homes, promising to conduct them to a land choice above all other lands. Their course of travel is not given with exactness; we learn only that they reached the ocean and there constructed eight vessels, called barges, in which they set out upon the waters. These vessels were small and dark within; but the Lord made certain stones luminous, and these gave light to the imprisoned voyagers. After a passage of three hundred and forty-four days, the colony landed on the American shores.

Here they became a flourishing nation; but, giving way in time to internal dissensions, they divided into factions, which warred with one another until the people were totally destroyed. This destruction, which occurred near the Hill Ramah, afterward known among the Nephites as Cumorah, probably took place at about the time of Lehi’s landing, near 590 B.C. The last representative of the ill-fated race was Coriantumr, the king, concerning whom Ether had prophesied that he should survive all his subjects and live to see another people in possession of the land. This prediction was fulfilled in that the king, whose people had been exterminated, came, in the course of his solitary wanderings, to a region occupied by the people of Mulek, who are to be mentioned here as the third ancient colony of emigrants from the eastern continent.

Mulek was the son of Zedekiah, king of Judah, an infant at the time of his brothers’ violent deaths and his father’s cruel torture at the hands of the king of Babylon. 5 Eleven years after Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem, another colony was led from the city, amongst whom was Mulek. The colony took his name, probably on account of his recognized rights of leadership by virtue of lineage. The Book of Mormon record concerning Mulek and his people is scant; we learn, however, that the colony was brought across the waters to a landing, probably on the northern part of the American continent. The descendants of this colony were discovered by the Nephites under Mosiah; they had grown numerous, but, having had no scriptures for their guidance had fallen into a condition of spiritual darkness. They joined the Nephites and their history is merged into that of the greater nation. 6 The Nephites gave to a part of North America the name Land of Mulek.

To do so, we will have to overcome a major stumbling block put in place by LDS intellectuals.

These LDS intellectuals seek to figure out Book of Mormon geography by focusing exclusively on the text. This approach naturally appeals to their intellectual arrogance and allows them to ignore and reject what the prophets and apostles have taught about Cumorah.

I’m all in favor of seeking to interpret the text, but not if our basic premise is that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, James Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, and so many others were wrong about Cumorah.
_____

As for reaching consensus and eliminating contention, the approach of these intellectuals is exactly the opposite of what Christ taught in 1 Nephi 11-12. The Lord didn’t encourage us to heed the intellectuals; he said, “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you.”

My favorite example was the “conclave” of LDS scholars who met to decipher the text, which I discussed here: http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/08/the-council-of-springville.html. These intellectuals actually believe that members of the Church should heed them. This mentality is right out of the New Testament (Matthew 23).

That’s why these latter-day scribes and Pharisees reject Letter VII and all the prophets and apostles who have specifically endorsed it.*
_____

Today I want to give another example of the confusion that is inherent in the approach taken by these intellectuals. It involves the “narrow neck of land.”

Here is a typical approach to the “narrow neck of land.”

http://www.mormongeography.com/the-narrow-neck-of-land.html

Notice the premise, which I bolded. The author claims all of these passages refer to the same geographic feature. I call this the “unitary interpretation.”

This is a common interpretation that the non-New York Cumorah advocates use. It’s one of the main reasons for their confusion. They are trying to find a real-world geographical feature that fits all of these descriptions.

BYU’s supposedly “neutral” Book of Mormon map that adopts the standard Mesoamerican interpretation of the text that is favored by many intellectuals because it makes sure Cumorah is not in New York

My favorite example of this confusion is currently being taught at BYU to students who trust their professors to teach them the truth.

The professors don’t teach the students what the prophets and apostles have said. Instead, they have concocted an “abstract” map that crams these verses into a fantasy land, which you can see here.

A lot of people simply accept what these intellectuals teach without thinking about it for themselves.

For many years, I did the same. I was persuaded by my BYU professors that we were “sophisticated” because we were working with PhD archaeologists, linguists, geologists, etc., instead of relying on the naive speculations of a bunch of 1830s farmers (who happened to be ordained prophets and apostles, but were merely expressing false opinions about Cumorah)

But then I re-read the text and discovered that these verses describe different features. They were written at different times, from different perspectives, and even used different terminology.

Look at what the text actually says:

Alma 22:32
32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Alma 50:34
34 And it came to pass that they did not ahead them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.

Alma 52:9
9 And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side.

Helaman 4:7
7 And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day’s journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.

Mormon 3:5
5 And it came to pass that I did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward.

Ether 10:20
20 And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

We have a small neck, a narrow pass which led by the sea, a narrow pass that doesn’t mention the sea (Alma 50:34 and 52:9 could be referring to the same feature, but not necessarily), a line, a narrow pass described hundreds of years after the Alma reference, and a narrow neck of land.

I’m not saying these cannot all refer to the same feature, but as a rule of construction, a reader should assume authors use different terms to refer to different things. For example, a “narrow neck” commonly refers to a water feature. That’s why Ether 10:20 specifies that it was a “narrow neck of land.”

Throughout the Book of Mormon text, authors are writing from different locations at different times. To assume each of these references describes the identical feature is to impose an interpretation that the text does not require or even suggest. Not impossible, but not likely, either.

Certainly, this strained unitary interpretation is not so mandatory that it justifies rejecting the words of the prophets and apostles about the location of Cumorah.
_____

You see from the above citations that the term “narrow neck of land” is used only once in the entire text, in Ether 10:20. (Whenever people ask me where the “narrow neck of land” is, I always say it’s in Ether 10:20, because that’s the only place it appears. Some Mesoamerican believers doubt me because of what they’ve been taught, but when they check for themselves, they realize how much they’ve been indoctrinated.)

The term “narrow neck of land” is inherently subjective, anyway. Here’s a great example a reader sent me.

Ron Chernow recently published a book titled Grant, about Ulysses S. Grant. At Kindle location 9161, Chernow writes, “[Gen Beuregard]…driving him [Gen Butler] back down the river to a thin neck of land formed by the confluence of the James and Appomattox rivers.” 

To what geographic feature is he referring?

Here’s a map drawn in 1864 that illustrates the feature. You can see it at the Library of Congress here:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gvhs01.vhs00178/

The confluence of the rivers is south of Richmond, Virginia.

(As an aside, the town built at the confluence happens to be named Hopewell. City Point, the oldest part of Hopewell, was settled in 1613. Hopewell/City Point “is the oldest continuously inhabited English settlement in the United States, Jamestown no longer being inhabited.”)

It helps to see this map in more detail, so here’s a close-up.

The part I’ve highlighted is the “thin neck of land” described by Chernow.

Notice that the Civil War era cartographer (Robert Knox Sneden, 1832-1918) labeled two features: Jones Neck and Curl’s Neck. These are both narrow necks of land, separate from the “thin neck of land” described by Chernow.

By these applications of the term “narrow (or thin) neck of land,” we have three features just in this one area.

I like to imagine what kind of maps our friends who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (or the fantasy BYU map) would come up with based on Chernow’s description.

Without an actual map, and without our common knowledge about the Civil War and the names of these rivers, these intellectuals would be classifying Chernow’s “thin neck of land” as yet another instance of the infamous “narrow neck of land” that conflates all the descriptions in the Book of Mormon text of different features. Our LDS intellectuals would put the U.S. Civil War somewhere in Mesoamerica.
_____

By now, I hope it’s obvious that the approach taken by the promoters of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory is nonsense.

Actually, this is obvious to most LDS–except to the intellectuals who keep promoting this stuff. They are so steeped in Mesomania that they “can’t unsee it,” as they have said.

And that’s fine.

They can continue to conduct their conclaves and debate among themselves the meaning of the various passages of the text.

But I hope the rest of us don’t mistake their ruminations as anything but what they are: the futile musings of blind guides who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I.e., they strain at Letter VII and swallow Mesoamerica.

As I wrote at the beginning of this post, I’m all in favor of seeking to interpret the text, but not if our basic premise is that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, James Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, and so many others were wrong.

How about if we all, as members of the Church, agree that these prophets and apostles were not wrong, but instead they were putting us on a course that would–and hopefully will–lead to unity and a great understanding of, and appreciation for, the Book of Mormon in 2018.

_____
* I have previously discussed the various rationales for rejecting Letter VII here. I’ve addressed the archaeological objections as well in several posts, such as this one.

Little did I know that there would be a perfect example of the need for pruning the very next day (today)!
_____

I realize the issue of Book of Mormon geography is touchy. It is subject to all kinds of speculation, ideas, semantic debates, sophistry, etc. Not to mention “contention,” although as far as I’m concerned, there is zero contention about the issue. I realize some people take the discussion personally, get offended, etc., but I consider all the discussion and analysis friendly and productive, always with the goal of achieving unity. (In my view the only way to eliminate contention is to heed the prophets and apostles, as the Lord explains in 3 Nephi 11-12, but others disagree because they don’t accept those words, so what can we do?)

I don’t object to anyone else having whatever views they want; my own views on the topic have changed over time and are constantly being refined as I learn more. However, I do object when intellectuals cite credentials to frame their views as superior to others’ and censor/suppress others’ views to prevent Church members and leaders from even knowing about alternatives. That’s what I document in this blog.

I’m told there is no official Church position about Book of Mormon geography. It’s up to each member to reach his/her own conclusions, which is great. People can believe whatever they want. Although I once accepted the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, I no longer do. I changed my mind because I learned things that the LDS intellectuals had not taught. But that difference of opinion is not my objection to BOMC.

I object to the approach taken by BOMC because (i) they censor and suppress different perspectives (and even inconvenient facts), contrary to Church policy; and (ii) they frame their position in a way that undermines faith.

I’ll address these in inverse order.
_____

Framing. By now, everyone reading this blog knows about Letter VII and its context.

The choice is simple and clear: Regarding Cumorah, people can choose to believe either the prophets and apostles (who have always and unanimously said it was in New York) or the intellectuals (who for decades have taught it is anywhere but New York). That choice drives everything else you want to believe about Book of Mormon historicity/geography, but that is not the real reason I have written so much about this topic.

The real question is, if you choose the intellectuals over the prophets on the Cumorah question, are you also going to follow the intellectuals instead of the prophets on other issues?

If you read the writings of the intellectuals, you quickly discover that they prefer their own ideas over what the prophets and apostles have taught about lots of subjects. If the prophets and apostles happen to agree with the intellectuals, then the intellectuals accept their teachings, but otherwise, according to the intellectuals, the prophets and apostles are naive, confused, perpetuating traditions, etc.

For me, the approach of the intellectuals is exactly backward. My bias is to accept what the prophets and apostles (and the scriptures) consistently teach, and then seek to corroborate their teachings with additional evidence.

The Cumorah issue is the single best illustration of this persistent problem because it is easy to understand and the choice is unambiguous. 

Cumorah is like a gateway drug. Once you are comfortable believing that Joseph and Oliver and David and all the other prophets and apostles were wrong about Cumorah, it is easier to reject anything else taught by the prophets that counters your own area of expertise.

In a way, it’s fun to watch the intellectuals think up as many reasons as they can for people to disbelieve Letter VII. But it’s not really fun because it has such serious ramifications.

That’s why, if we don’t prune away the philosophies of men promoted by these intellectuals, we will continue to see members and investigators become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.

To be clear, I respect and personally like all the people associated with BOMC (as well as FairMormon, which promotes the same dogma). I like the idea of BOMC (and FairMormon). I had high hopes for BOMC when it was first announced.

But instead, they have turned it into an advocacy group that teaches the prophets and apostles are wrong.

In my opinion, BOMC is doing more harm than good because their fundamental belief is that they, as intellectuals, know more than the prophets and apostles. Their dogma leads BOMC (and FairMormon) to teach that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and every other prophet and apostle who has spoken or written about the Hill Cumorah was wrong. This includes Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, James E. Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith, LeGrand Richards, Marion G. Romney, and others.

Here’s another way to express it:

I think this Cumorah/Letter VII gateway drug is leading many members to question their faith, and is leading investigators to stop investigating.
_____

Suppressing. Book of Mormon Central (BOMC, but more accurately known as Book of Mormon Central America) published a “kno-why” today titled “Why Is David Whitmer’s Witness of the Book of Mormon So Compelling?” This is a prime example of why Book of Mormon Central (BOMC) is so exasperating.

As usual, there is a lot of good material in the article.

But as usual, the “kno-why” is misleading because it is tainted by the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

I explain why in a blog post here, but for purposes of this blog, I simply want to warn readers that everything you read from Book of Mormon Central is designed to promote its dogmatic insistence that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico. 

They have to promote this dogma because it’s the Mission Statement of their corporate owner.*

Readers of this blog know that I welcome a variety of opinions. I link to sites that advocate other views–including today’s kno-why. I encourage people to consider a variety of views, along with all the relevant, material evidence, and then make up their own minds.

BOMC takes exactly the opposite approach. They think they know the truth (they have PhDs and BYU professors, after all) and they are therefore justified in suppressing alternative perspectives, interpretations–and even contrary facts.

They refuse to publish material that contradicts or even questions their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs dogma. And they attack anyone who dares to do so, to the point of intervening to prevent firesides and discussions of alternative perspectives.

IOW, if you accept what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught in Letter VII, BOMC will do everything possible to censor and suppress your ideas.**

For example, I’ve offered to provide input on these kno-whys that would make them at least more inclusive of diverse viewpoints, but they outright refuse because of their ideology.

Here is the real danger: Because contributors to BOMC include faithful LDS scholars and educators, including BYU faculty, unsuspecting members of the Church easily accept what BOMC teaches. It’s not easy to tell when BOMC omits critical information or uses rhetorical tricks to promote its dogma. People who rely on BOMC think they are promoting Church doctrine, which, as I mentioned at the outset, is untrue. That’s how you have presentations such as this going on throughout the Church, in Church buildings, sponsored by local Church leaders who have no idea that the speaker is teaching the youth that Joseph and Oliver were wrong and misled the Church.

But everyone who believes what BOMC publishes–LDS youth, missionaries, investigators, long-time members–eventually comes to believe, as they do, that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and their contemporaries and successors were unreliable witnesses who misled the Church about such a fundamental point as the location of the Hill Cumorah.

And once the intellectuals have you hooked on this idea, they can persuade you to believe the prophets and apostles are wrong about anything else they want.
_____

*Ever since its inception, Book of Mormon Central has deliberately emphasized the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory developed and promoted by its founders and staff.

This is in fulfillment of the Mission Statement of its corporate owner, Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, Inc.

“Our goals are (1) to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”

http://bmaf.org/about/mission_statement

By their own mission statement, BOMC is prevented from publishing anything that contradicts the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

**To be fair, BOMC did, early on, include the first edition of my Letter VII book in their archive. This is why I thought BOMC had potential to do a lot of good. But since then, they added a highly critical article without allowing me to respond. Actually, they’ve added several critical articles without allowing me to respond. This is classic Orwellian technique, designed to appear “neutral” while actually being anything but.

I’m commenting on #395 because it’s especially egregious.

The title is promising: “Why Is David Whitmer’s Witness of the Book of Mormon So Compelling?”

Book of Mormon Central America is trying to control the present

And yet David Witmer’s testimony contradicts the entire premise of Book of Mormon Central’s overriding corporate mandate “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”

How does BOMC avoid this obvious problem?

Simply by censoring inconvenient facts.

BOMC is operating under the rules spelled out in George Orwell’s book, 1984. (BTW, I have been conducting informal polls among my college students for a decade. In recent years, few if any students have even heard of 1984, Newspeak, etc. It’s no longer taught in high school, apparently. Which explains why Orwellian tactics are so successful with the younger generations–including students at BYU, based on what I’m hearing about their reactions to the “abstract” fantasy map of the Book of Mormon they are being taught there.)

You can read the entire kno-why and not find a single mention of a critical aspect of David Whitmer’s testimony, one he repeated often.

Of course, I’m referring to the encounter he had on the road between Harmony and Fayette with the messenger who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.

We have to admire the care with which this was done. Unsuspecting readers will never realize how Church history is being re-written here.

The very first sentence in the kno-why has footnote 1, which refers to page 108 in Professor John Welch’s book, Opening the Heavens. Page 108 contains the false footnote that I’ve written about before, here. The note says “The plates were carried to Fayette by Moroni in a bundle on his back.” In fact, there are no accounts of any such thing. Even the source cited in the footnote gives the account of David Whitmer explaining that the messenger said he was taking the plates to Cumorah, not Fayette. The messenger was explicitly not going to Fayette; that’s why he did not accept a ride on the wagon.

True, the messenger did eventually bring plates to Fayette. But no one ever said these were the Harmony plates.*

To make it easy, compare the footnote to the original source:
_____

Footnote:

“The plates were carried to Fayette by Moroni in a bundle on his back.”

Original source (Joseph F. Smith, 1918):

“In the middle of this prairie, all of a sudden, there appeared a man walking along the road, and David said he raised his hat and rubbed his brow, as if it were a little warm, and said good morning to them, and they said good morning. Oliver and David looked at each other and began to marvel and wonder: Where did he come from, what does it mean? David described him saying he had on something like an old-fashioned knapsack, but of course a little differently formed, right across his shoulders, and on his back he was carrying something of considerable weight.

“They looked round to Joseph inquiringly: What does it mean? And Joseph said, “Ask him to ride.” So David, who was teamster, asked him if he would get in and ride with them. He said, “No, I am just going over to Cumorah.” David said, “Cumorah? Cumorah? What does that mean?” He had never heard of Cumorah, and he said, I thought I knew this country all around here, but I never heard of Cumorah” and he inquired about it. While he was looking around and trying to ascertain what the mystery was the man was gone, and when he looked back he did not seem him any more. Then he demanded, “What does it mean?”

“Joseph informed him that the man was Moroni, and that the bundle on his back contained plates which Joseph had delivered to him before they departed from Harmony, Susequehanna County, and that he was taking them for safety, and would return them when he (Joseph) reached father Whitmer’s home. There was a long talk about this.”
_____

To be sure, there is a discrepancy in the accounts about whether this messenger was Moroni or one of the Three Nephites, a topic I’ve discussed elsewhere, but there is complete consistency among all the accounts that the messenger was going to Cumorah.
_____

It’s obvious why BOMC (and Opening the Heavens) has to re-write history.

BOMC encounters the Three Witnesses – David Whitmer edition

David Whitmer’s consistent testimony that the messenger was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah destroys the two-Cumorah theory.

(Some intellectuals have even suggested that the messenger was making a quick trip to Central America!)

BOMC doesn’t want its readers to even know about this important incident on the trip from Harmony to Fayette. Look how they frame it in the kno-why:

David had received word from Oliver Cowdery that Joseph had an ancient record, that he had begun translating it, and that harassment from locals in Harmony was deterring their progress.2 After remaining long enough to observe the young Prophet in action, which included receiving a personal revelation at Joseph’s hands (Doctrine and Covenants 14), David was satisfied “of the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith.”3

With this conviction in place, David used his team and wagon to transport Joseph and Oliver to the home of his parents in Fayette, New York.4 This allowed the translation to move forward to completion without interruption.5 

BOMC doesn’t mention that the reason Joseph had Oliver write to David Whitmer was he received a commandment, through the Urim and Thummim, to do so. That’s because, according to standard BOMC dogma, Joseph didn’t actually use the Urim and Thummim.

Footnote 3 is clever:

Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation,” 176, doc. 99. Several miracles related to this journey helped David Whitmer have faith that he was on the Lord’s errand. These include his fields being miraculously plowed and fertilized as well as Joseph Smith seeing the details of his journey through the Urim and Thummim. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Whitmers: A Family That Nourished the Church,” Ensign, August 1979, online at lds.org; Keith W. Perkins, “True to the Book of Mormon—The Whitmers,” Ensign, February 1989, online at lds.org.

Notice how they list two items related to the trip but omit the third one that contradicts their dogma. Fortunately, it is described in the Perkins article in the Ensign here: “As Joseph, Oliver, and David departed Harmony for Fayette the next day, David once again witnessed an event that strengthened his testimony of the truthfulness of the work of the Restoration. On the trip, they met “a very pleasant, nice-looking old man” who greeted them with “Good morning, it is very warm.” Returning the salutation, they invited him to ride with them. He pleasantly responded, “No, I am going to Cumorah.” This name was new to David since he had never heard it before. The old gentleman “instantly disappeared,” and they did not see him again.”

With BOMC, you not only can’t trust the article, you can’t trust the footnotes. You have to go to original sources every time. (So far, BOMC has not managed to edit original sources, but they know that few readers venture into the footnotes, let alone the original sources.)

There’s more I could say, but this gives you a flavor for how BOMC misleads its readers to fulfill its corporate mission.
_____

Consider the juxtaposition of BOMC’s censorship of the encounter with the messenger taking the plates to Cumorah with this statement at the end of the kno-why. If BOMC really accepts David’s testimony, why do they censor his testimony about the messenger going to Cumorah?

Purely because it contradicts their dogma.

And yet, they want readers to think they support David Whitmer’s testimony.

_____

(In the Joseph F. Smith account, Joseph says the messenger “would return them” but there is no indication that Joseph knew, on the way to Fayette, that he would be translating different plates once he got to Fayette. He only knew the Lord had told him to translate the plates of Nephi. There is no indication that he knew when and where he would receive those plates and have the opportunity to do that.)

Such as, for instance, all the theories of Book of Mormon geography that reject the New York Cumorah.

Right now, the historicity of the Book of Mormon looks something like this. It is chaotic, with lots of theories breaking off from the trunk.

The trunk being the words of the prophets and apostles.

Members of the Church, former members, nonmembers–people everywhere are confused.

Is the Book of Mormon a true history or is it fiction?

Were Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah, or were they teaching correctly based on their own experience?

Are LDS intellectuals smarter and better-informed than were Joseph and Oliver and all of their contemporaries?

This confusion has led to many people breaking away from the trunk. Others are barely hanging on.

There’s a good solution to this problem. It involves pruning.

Jacob 5 refers to pruning 9 times. It’s an essential part of successful tree management.

When trees are not pruned, they grow wildly.

The longer they grow, the more wild they become.

The unpruned tree is the state of Book of Mormon historicity and geography today.

I think it’s time–well past time–to prune away the non-New York Cumorahs.

If we would only heed the words of the prophets, starting with Letter VII, we would have a nicely pruned, organized, and productive tree.

The Letter VII tree still has a variety of branches–people can interpret the geography in lots of different ways–but at least the trunk is sound. We’re all accepting the words of the prophets and apostles, not going off in all directions as we are now, thanks to the various “two-Cumorahs” theories promoted by some intellectuals.

I think Joseph and Oliver pruned this geography tree back in 1835, when they declared in no uncertain terms that Cumorah was in New York.

But our intellectuals didn’t accept what they said. 

And because the intellectuals have come to dominate BYU/CES, the confusion their theories have generated have caused serious damage to the tree.

Let’s see if we can prune the tree during 2018. 

Let’s cut away all the “two-Cumorahs” theories and bring order and productivity to the tree.

Moroni explained in the Title Page that the Book of Mormon was written “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

This blog and all my other LDS-related work is intended to help fulfill that purpose.

So far, I’ve been pretty low key in discussing Church history and Book of Mormon historicity. The more I learn about these topics, the more convincing the narrative is. The New York Cumorah, the two sets of plates, confidence in the reliability and credibility of Joseph and Oliver (Letter VII, etc.), Joseph’s consistency throughout his life–all of these and more are important for people to know, both believers and non-believers.

In the last two years, my blogs have had over 200,000 page views from around the world, plus many more views on other sites that replicate the blogs, including Facebook, Amazon, MoronisAmerica.com, and others, but that is low key compared with what is coming.

In the last 2-3 years, I’ve had ten books on these topics published, but I’ve done little to promote them–so far.

I wanted every member of the Church to read and understand Letter VII in 2016. And again in 2017. Many thousands have, but there’s a long way to go.

There are a lot of things underway that will make 2018 an awesome year for the Book of Mormon.
_____

I’ve been low key because I’ve hoped to work with LDS scholars and educators privately to change the paradigms that, in my view, are counterproductive.* But I’ve learned in these last couple of years that there is tremendous inertia, resistance to new ideas, and other obstacles to overcome. Consequently, the old paradigms still prevail, at least among many members of the Church.

Here’s the basic story from my perspective.

Even before he got the plates, Joseph knew the “hill in New York” was Cumorah because Moroni called it that. But Joseph didn’t know the details until he translated the Harmony plates in Pennsylvania. Later, he and Oliver and others visited Mormon’s depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York; i.e., they learned from actual experience that this was the hill spoken of in Mormon 6:6.

After the Book of Mormon was attacked as a fictional work based on an unpublished manuscript by Solomon Spalding, Joseph** and Oliver wrote Letter VII and published it in July 1835 in the official Church newspaper, the Messenger and Advocate. In that letter, they outright declared it was a fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites occurred at the Hill Cumorah in New York. This removed the taint of fiction from the Book of Mormon. This teaching prevailed at least through the 1970s when it was taught in General Conference.

In the 1970s, the decades-old theory invented by RLDS scholars about a limited geography in Mesoamerica took hold among LDS scholars. David Palmer published In Search of Cumorah in 1981, Sorenson published An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and a couple of Ensign articles along the same lines, and the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory reached a tipping point. The artwork in the missionary editions of the Book of Mormon was changed in 1981, replacing the Friberg painting of Mormon and Moroni together on the New York Cumorah with the painting of Moroni alone on the New York hill, and adding the painting of Christ visiting the Nephites among Mayan ruins.

The New York Cumorah was framed by certain LDS intellectuals as an incorrect folk tradition, partly because it didn’t meet the “criteria” established by these same Mesoamerican-promoting intellectuals. These criteria are transparently self-serving, but they became enshrined even in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. The intellectuals said all the prophets and apostles who had affirmed Letter VII were wrong.

The Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory was taught in innumerable presentations, articles, books, blogs, etc., supported by reference to illusory “correspondences” between the text and archaeological discoveries in Central America. I consider these illusory because they are characteristic of most human societies around the world and throughout time.

The illusory nature of these “correspondences” explains why there are so many theories of Book of Mormon geography. When the intellectuals cut us free from the prophetic constraints Joseph and Oliver imposed by situating Cumorah in New York, we entered a phase of geographic relativism.

But at least we were looking for a real-world setting.

In recent years, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

BYU and CES are now teaching students an “abstract” fantasy map that frames the Book of Mormon as a fictional account akin to the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings, with their associated “abstract” fantasy maps.

The narrative that Joseph and Oliver were wrong has been taught for decades now, so that Church employees, scholars, and many Church members accept it as a given. As a result, we see the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory incorporated into Church media and artwork, the Joseph Smith Papers and the Church History Museum, the visitors centers, and chapels worldwide.

I’m informed that officially, the Church has no position on Book of Mormon geography. We are each entitled to our own opinions, based on our own research, spiritual, intellectual, and physical.

But we’re not entitled to our own facts.

One thing all members of the Church share is Church history. It’s our common heritage, no matter when we joined or how old we are. Interpretations of historical events are subjective, but the more we know about the historical facts, the better informed our opinions are.

But the intellectuals have effectively suppressed any discussion of Letter VII and its context, as well as the real-world evidence that supports the New York Cumorah. I’ve documented plenty of examples in this and other blogs, and I could document plenty more.

I think geography relativism undermines the goal of using the Book of Mormon to convince people that Jesus is the Christ–especially when it is based on the repudiation of what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah.

I disagree with the current notion that undermining the reliability and credibility of the prophets and apostles helps build faith in those prophets and apostles.

The more people learn about Church history and the relevant archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology, the more they shift away from the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory and toward the New York Cumorah.

2018 is going to be an amazing year for education.
_____

*What current paradigms are counterproductive?

If the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince people that Jesus is the Christ, IMO it is counterproductive to teach people things that undermine faith in the Book of Mormon and the prophets and apostles. Few people read the Book of Mormon when they think it is fiction or some kind of pious fraud.

Nevertheless, there are several prevalent paradigms taught by LDS intellectuals that, in my view, undermine faith in just this way.

Right now, LDS students at BYU/CES (not to mention missionaries and investigators) are being taught that the best way to understand the Book of Mormon narrative is by studying an “abstract” fantasy map that portrays Cumorah as anywhere other than in New York. This frames the text as fiction and repudiates 150+ years of teachings by the prophets and apostles.

It is counterproductive to tell people that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant speculators who misled the Church (and the world) about the Hill Cumorah being in New York when they wrote, published, and republished Letter VII.

It is counterproductive (but self-serving for the intellectuals) to tell people that Joseph Smith changed his mind about Book of Mormon geography during his lifetime and ended up learning about it from scholars, whose views he supposedly endorsed.

It is counterproductive to tell people that all of the prophets and apostles who reaffirmed the New York Cumorah were wrong. It is also counterproductive to tell people that the intellectuals know this because they have PhDs and “expertise” that outweighs what Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries and successors taught.

It is counterproductive to tell people that Cumorah cannot be in New York because it doesn’t fit the criteria established by the intellectuals, especially when these criteria are not set out in the text and are designed solely to fit the Mesoamerican narrative.

It is counterproductive to censor and exclude ideas about Book of Mormon geography that contradict the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory favored by these intellectuals.

**Note: some people claim Joseph didn’t help write Letter VII, but Oliver said Joseph helped write the letters, Joseph had them copied into his own history, and Joseph told at least his brother Don Carlos and Benjamin Winchester to publish them in their respective newspapers. In addition, Parley P. Pratt published it in the Millennial Star in England and in a special pamphlet consisting of all 8 of these historical letters, printed in response to strong demand by the British Saints. This was all during Joseph’s lifetime. Two days after the martyrdom in 1844, Joseph’s brother William Smith published Letter VII in his New York newspaper. I think this evidence demonstrates Joseph’s repeated endorsement of Letter VII, whether he actually co-wrote it or not. I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that Joseph believed Cumorah was in New York. All of his contemporaries agreed.

Cumorah: A Decision Tree for Book of Mormon Geography

Moroni knew how important location was. 

During his first visit to Joseph Smith, Moroni “gave a history of the aborigines of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham… He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place,” meaning Joseph’s home near Palmyra, New York.

Today, people take three basic approaches to the geography question:

1. Some people don’t care about the geography;

2. Some people think it’s important to know the geography and culture to understand the text (as we do with the Bible); and 

3. Some people won’t believe or even read the book unless they have a plausible reason, supported by evidence, to first believe it’s an authentic history that took place in a real-world location.

Judging by the outcome of over 180 years of publishing the Book of Mormon to the world–over 150 million physical copies, plus millions of electronic versions–by far most people in the world fit into category #3. 

Aware of this, the early missionaries cited evidence. When confronted with the anti-Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon was fiction, Joseph and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published Letter VII, stating it was a fact that Cumorah was a real place. It was the very hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates, where Mormon deposited the Nephite records, and where the Jaredites and Nephites had their final battles.

All the Church publications re-printed Letter VII to reaffirm the message that Cumorah was in New York.

_____

The Church has no official position on the setting. It is up to each member, individually, to decide, based on the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, and the available evidence. No one is obligated to believe what someone else believes or teaches, regardless of how much education a particular proponent has.

The question really boils down to this:

Do you think the Hill Cumorah is in New York or somewhere else?

The historical record is clear: Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and all of their contemporaries believed and taught that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. In addition, all of the prophets and apostles who have spoken on this issue agreed, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference as recently as the 1970s. No prophet or apostle has said Cumorah was anywhere else.

Those who believe the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is in New York think the rest of the geography flows from that point in the map. 

Those who believe the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is somewhere else think (i) the New York “Cumorah” is a false tradition and (ii) the location of Cumorah can only be determined by reference to the location of other Book of Mormon settings (Mesoamerica, Baja, Panama, Chile, etc.) The most widely accepted non-New York Cumorah is somewhere in Southern Mexico. This is the Mesoamerican theory promoted by intellectuals affiliated with BYU, CES, etc. It is the theory displayed in most Church artwork, media, visitors centers, etc., although there are some depictions of the New York Cumorah, such as Arnold Friberg’s painting.

______________

To decide whether you agree with Central America or North America, you can check the box next to the proposition and then compare your responses to those of the Central and North American proponents. 1-17 are statements of historical fact; 18-20 are conclusions.

Proposition	Agree	Disagree
1. When Moroni first visited Joseph Smith, he said the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home.
2. Joseph Smith obtained the original set of plates from a stone box Moroni constructed out of stone and cement in the Hill Cumorah in New York.
3. Mormon said he buried all the Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah (Morm. 6:6), which was the scene of the final battles of the Nephites, except for the plates he gave to his son Moroni to finish the record.
4. Orson Pratt explained that Moroni deposited the plates in “a department of the hill separate from the great, sacred depository of the numerous volumes hid up by his father.”
5. Brigham Young said Oliver told him that he (Oliver) and Joseph had made at least two visits to a room in the Hill Cumorah in New York that contained piles of records and ancient Nephite artifacts.
6. Heber C. Kimball talked about Father Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others seeing records upon records piled upon tables in the hill Cumorah.
7. When Joseph and Oliver finished translating the original set of plates in Harmony, PA, Joseph gave the plates to a divine messenger who took them to Cumorah.
8. In Fayette, NY, Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi.
9. Oliver Cowdery was the Assistant President of the Church and spokesman when he wrote that it was a fact that the valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York was the location of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites, as well as the site of Mormon’s depository of Nephite records (Letter VII).
10. Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, into his journal as part of his history.
11. Joseph Smith gave express permission to Benjamin Winchester to republish Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, in his 1841 newspaper called the Gospel Reflector.
12. Joseph Smith gave Don Carlos Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, to republish in the Church newspaper called the Times and Seasons (T&S) in 1840-41.
13. Letter VII was republished in the Millennial Star and in an 1844 pamphlet in England. It was republished by Joseph’s brother William in New York City just two days after Joseph’s martyrdom in The Prophet. It was republished in Utah in the Improvement Era, then edited by Joseph F. Smith.
14. D&C 128:20 reads, “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed,” followed by references to other events that took place in New York.
15. To date, apart from Moroni’s stone box and the plates and other objects Joseph Smith possessed and showed to the Witnesses, no artifact or archaeological site that can be specifically linked to the Book of Mormon has been found anywhere, but there are archaeological sites that match the vague descriptions given in the text throughout the Americas.
16. Every LDS who was alive during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and several prophets and apostles since, accepted the New York hill Cumorah as the scene of the final battles, including in General Conference addresses. No General Conference address has ever claimed Cumorah was anywhere but in New York.
17. As an Apostle and Church Historian, Joseph Fielding Smith said the two-Cumorah theory caused members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. He reiterated this when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve in the 1950s in his book Doctrines of Salvation.
18. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were merely speculating about the location of Cumorah. They were wrong and they misled the Church by referring to the New York setting as a fact.
19. Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong when he criticized the two-Cumorahs theory and maintained that Cumorah is in New York.
20. President Anthony Ivins, President Marion G. Romney, and Elder Mark E. Peterson were all wrong when they spoke in General Conference about Cumorah being in New York.

If you agree with 1-20 (or disagree with some of 1-17 but agree with 18-20), then you reject the New York Cumorah and either (i) accept a Mesoamerican setting (or another non-New York Cumorah setting) or (ii) don’t believe the Book of Mormon is a literal history.

If you agree with 1-17 but disagree with 18-20, then you accept the New York Cumorah and therefore probably reject the settings outside North America.

Now you know where you stand, at least with respect to the New York Cumorah, and you can proceed accordingly.

_____

[I posted a more detailed comparison table in August, 2016, here. This one includes areas in which the two sides agree to disagree. So far as I know, it remains the most detailed and complete statement of the respective positions of those who advocate a Central American (Mesoamerican) setting and a North American (Heartland/Moroni’s America) setting.]

But this narrative contradicts the prevailing Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that some intellectuals in the Church have promoted for decades.

See which narrative fits your concept.

Two narratives*

A common theme in the scriptures, literature, and even psychology is the existence of two narratives from which people choose. Of course, there are usually far more than two, but often there are two fundamentally different narratives.

For example, the New Testament describes two narratives about Christ:

John 10:19-21 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

There are lots of examples. I’m sure you can think of several right now.

Lehi gave an explanation here:

2 Nephi 2:11, 15 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad… it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

________________________

With regard to Book of Mormon geography and historicity, we can choose between two narratives. I’ll compare them side by side below.

Note that “Mesoamerica” is a proxy for every theory that places Cumorah somewhere other than in New York.

As always, I emphasize that people are free to believe whatever they want. The table is intended to clarify what others think so you can compare your own beliefs and make up your own mind.

Which do you find more compatible with your beliefs? Which is more compatible with the historical evidence? Which is best corroborated by the sciences?

Mesoamerica	Moroni’s America
Mormon and Moroni lived in Mesoamerica.	Mormon and Moroni lived in North America.
Mormon wrote his abridgment somewhere in Mesoamerica and hid up all the Nephite records in a repository in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), a hill somewhere in southern Mexico, before giving “these few plates” to Moroni. (Note: Moroni told Joseph the record was “written and deposited near” Joseph’s home.)	Mormon wrote his abridgment in the vicinity of western New York and hid up all the Nephite records in a repository in in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), the hill near Palmyra, New York, before giving “these few plates” to Moroni. (Note: Moroni told Joseph the record was “written and deposited near” Joseph’s home.)
Thinking he would not live long, Moroni adds a couple of chapters to his father’s record, travels 3,400 miles to New York, and hides the plates in the stone box, thinking he would not live long. Or, he keeps the plates with him while he roams around Mesoamerica for decades before taking them to New York. Or he hides them somewhere else until he is ready to take them 3,400 miles to New York.	Thinking he would not live long, Moroni adds a couple of chapters to his father’s record and hides the plates in the stone box he built in the hill Cumorah in New York, separate from his father’s depository in the same hill.
Later, Moroni retrieves the plates of Ether from the repository in southern Mexico and abridges them. He adds the abridgment to his father’s abridgment, along with a sealed portion, and hides the plates again in New York. Or, Moroni abridges the plates of Ether right after his father died, and the plates of Ether were among the few his father gave him, and after he abridges them, he returns the original plates to his father’s depository. Or the plates of Ether are the sealed portion.	Later, Moroni retrieves the plates of Ether from the depository in New York and abridges them. He adds this abridgment to his father’s abridgment, along with a sealed portion and his own commentary, and puts this collection of plates into his stone box. He returns the original plates of Ether to the depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.
Later, Moroni returns to the repository in southern Mexico and gets a sermon and letters from his father. He adds this material to his final comments—the Book of Moroni—and returns to New York to put the finished record back in the stone box.	Later, Moroni returns to the depository in New York and gets a sermon and letters from his father. He adds this material to his final comments—the Book of Moroni—and puts his finished record back in the stone box. He returns the source material to the depository.
Moroni visits Joseph Smith in 1823 and tells him the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home. But this is a mistake because the record was written in Central America and deposited in New York. Either Joseph or Oliver misunderstood, or else Moroni misspoke.	Moroni visits Joseph Smith in 1823 and tells him the record was “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home. Moroni accurately describes where the record was written.
Joseph Smith obtained the abridged record of the Nephites and the Jaredites from Moroni’s stone box. He translated part of these plates in Harmony and gave them back to an angel. The Lord told him to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), even though he had reached the end of the plates (the Title Page) and hadn’t found these plates of Nephi yet.	Joseph Smith obtained the abridged record of the Nephites and the Jaredites from Moroni’s stone box. He translated these plates in Harmony and gave them back to an angel because he was finished with them. The Lord told him to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), but he didn’t have those yet.
In Harmony, Joseph translated the Title Page from the last leaf of the plates. He had it printed and delivered to the U.S. federal district court in New York as part of his copyright application.	In Harmony, Joseph translated the Title Page from the last leaf of the plates. He had it printed and delivered to the U.S. federal district court in New York as part of his copyright application.
On the way from Harmony to Fayette, David Whitmer said he, Joseph and Oliver encountered an old man bearing the plates who was heading for Cumorah. Joseph said it was one of the three Nephites. But David was mistaken because he conflated the false tradition of the New York Cumorah with another unspecified event.	On the way from Harmony to Fayette, David Whitmer said he, Joseph and Oliver encountered an old man bearing the plates who was heading for Cumorah. Joseph said it was one of the three Nephites. This was the messenger who had the Harmony plates and was returning them to the repository.
In Fayette, an angel returned the Harmony plates to Joseph.	In Fayette, an angel gave Joseph the small plates of Nephi which came from the repository in Cumorah.
In Fayette, Joseph translated the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi – Words of Mormon).	In Fayette, Joseph translated the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi – Words of Mormon).
Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and others had multiple visions of Mormon’s depository in the “real” Hill Cumorah, which is somewhere in southern Mexico.	Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and others actually visited Mormon’s depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York and saw the stacks of plates and other Nephite artifacts.
Cumorah cannot be in New York because it is a “clean hill.”	Cumorah is in New York because hundreds of artifacts, including weapons of war, have been recovered from the vicinity of the hill.
Cumorah cannot be in New York because it is a glacial moraine that cannot contain a natural cave.	Cumorah is in New York because an actual room that matches the description given by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and others has been found there.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never claimed revelation about the location of Cumorah. They merely speculated. They adopted a false tradition and misled the Church. Joseph later changed his mind and, by writing anonymous articles, claimed the Book of Mormon took place in Central America and that only scholars could determine where the Book of Mormon took place.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery didn’t need revelation about the location of Cumorah because they visited Mormon’s depository. They may also have had revelations that they didn’t write or even relate. E.g., JS-H 1:73-4. They did not mislead the Church. Joseph never changed his mind and never linked the Book of Mormon to Central America, through anonymous articles or otherwise.
All the modern prophets and apostles who have identified the Hill Cumorah as the scene of the final battles were speaking as uninspired men. They were speculating, giving their own opinions, and they were wrong. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.	All the modern prophets and apostles who have identified the Hill Cumorah as the scene of the final battles were speaking as their roles as prophets, seers and revelators. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.
The two-Cumorahs theory originated with scholars from the Reorganized Church and was adopted and promoted by LDS scholars because it’s the only explanation that fits their criteria. Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong to condemn the theory and didn’t know what he was talking about.	The two-Cumorahs theory originated with scholars from the Reorganized Church and was adopted and promoted by LDS scholars because it’s the only explanation that fits their criteria. These scholars have rejected Elder Joseph Fielding Smith when he warned the two-Cumorahs theory would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.
The scholars’ two-Cumorah theory is correct because whenever the current Brethren have a question about the Book of Mormon, they consult the scholars at BYU who promote the two-Cumorahs theory.	The scholars’ two-Cumorah theory doesn’t fit the historical record, the affirmative declarations of Joseph and Oliver, or the prophetic statements of numerous modern prophets and apostles.

Graphically:

The Mesoamerican (two Cumorahs) setting is depicted in the North Visitors’ Center on Temple Square, with Mormon surrounded by Mayan glyphs in one hill, while Moroni is far away burying the plates in New York:

The panels at the exhibit include Arnold Friberg’s famous paintings of Book of Mormon scenes in Central America. A photo of “Mormon’s hill” in Mesoamerica can be found on lds.org here.

[Note: these displays would be consistent with the Church’s official position of neutrality if there were no glyphs painted on the walls of Mormon’s repository, although it would still be problematic to physically separate the depository from Moroni’s stone box.]

____________________

The New York (one Cumorah) setting as described by Orson Pratt:

“The particular place in the hill, where Moroni secreted the book, was revealed by the angel to the Prophet Joseph Smith, to whom the volume was delivered in September, 1827. But the grand depository of all the numerous records of the ancient nations of the western continent, was located in another department of the hill, and its contents under the charge of holy angels, until the day should come for them to be transferred to the sacred temple of Zion.”  

Orson Pratt, “The Hill Cumorah”, Millennial Star, Vol. 28, July 7, 1866, p. 417

_____

* taken from http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/02/two-narratives.html