Author: Jonathan Neville

In the previous post we looked at the criteria for knowing whether something is official Mormon doctrine.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

– Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. 

– A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 

– With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. 

– This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”

I discussed how Letter VII (1) originated with the First Presidency and (2) was “consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.” In fact, it was proclaimed in every official Church publication during Joseph’s lifetime, (except for the Elders’ Journal which consisted of only four issues). It was proclaimed after Joseph’s death as well.

As far as I know, Letter VII has not yet been published in the Ensign, but the teachings of prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah have been published in the Ensign’s conference reports. This is not surprising, really; the Ensign rarely reprints historical documents, and Letter VII has already been reprinted so many times that it is well-established in Church literature.

Because the Mormon Newsroom article also refers to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, today I am considering what members of the Quorum of the Twelve have said about Letter VII and the New York Cumorah.
_____

In February 1835, Oliver Cowdery, along with David Whitmer and Martin Harris, selected the first twelve Apostles of this dispensation. There’s a nice article about it here:
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-and-doctrinal-restoration/23-calling-twelve-apostles-and-seventy-1835#_edn16

Original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Members of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Top row, left to right: Thomas B. Marsh (no picture available), David W. Patten (no picture available), Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball. Middle row: Orson Hyde, William E. Mc’Lellin, Parley P. Pratt, Luke S. Johnson. Bottom row: William B. Smith, Orson Pratt, John F. Boynton, Lyman E. Johnson http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/rel341/Pictures/Original%20Quorum%20of%2012.htm

_____

These men constituted the Quorum of the Twelve through 1837. (For a brief summary of each individual’s role, see this page.) We don’t have complete records for each of these men, but for the records we do have show that each of them who ever spoke or wrote about Cumorah reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver wrote in Letter VII.

-Brigham Young related Oliver’s accounts of entering into Mormon’s depository of Nephite records in the New York hill Cumorah.

-Heber C. Kimball affirmed the account.

-Parley P. Pratt not only republished Oliver’s letters in England, but he related events from his mission to the Lamanites, during which he accompanied Oliver. He said Oliver told people about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

-William Smith told people about Cumorah in New York and published Letter VII in the Prophet just two days after Joseph was martyred in Carthage.

-Orson Pratt not only reprinted Oliver’s letters but identified Cumorah in his footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon. Orson speculated about other Book of Mormon sites as he indicated in those notes, but he unequivocally stated that Cumorah was in Manchester, New York.

Consequently, we have Letter VII originating from the First Presidency, sustained and taught by the Quorum of the Twelve, and consistently proclaimed in official Church publications for many years.
_____

Subsequent members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have reaffirmed the New York setting for Cumorah as well. This includes members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, as I’ve discussed before.

No prophet or apostle has ever rejected the teaching of Letter VII.
_____

The only ones who have rejected Letter VII and are teaching members of the Church to disbelieve it are the intellectuals who promote a two-Cumorahs theory. Most of these also promote the Mesoamerican setting, but others promote a setting in Baja, in Panama, in Chile, etc.

I think that, once educated about Letter VII, most Church members will choose to believe the prophets and apostles instead of the intellectuals.

The intellectuals have successfully promulgated their theory by keeping members of the Church ignorant of the context, content, and legitimacy of Letter VII.

Hence the need for more members of the Church to read and share Letter VII.

It’s no wonder so many members are confused about the geography issue. There is a long academic tradition of conflating two separate points, and I’m giving another example in today’s post.

Church leaders from the beginning have been crystal clear about two things:

1. Cumorah is in New York.

2. We don’t know the specifics of other Book of Mormon locations.

Because many LDS scholars claim to know more than the prophets, they have taken point 2 and applied it to point 1. This gives them license (they think) to repudiate what Joseph, Oliver, and every other prophet and apostle who has spoken about Cumorah has taught.

These intellectuals have succeeded mainly by keeping Church members ignorant of Letter VII. 

Today’s example illustrates this technique.

The purpose of this blog is to refocus on the two points above. I think it’s a travesty to have our own scholars and educators mislead the people into thinking Cumorah is somewhere other than in New York.

The rest of the geography, of course, is not officially known, so it is open to anyone’s personal study, speculation, debate, etc. I’m happy to share what I think, but I’m also happy to hear what others think. None of it is official except for the location of Cumorah, because that location is established doctrine, consistently taught by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for over 150 years.*
_____

Deseret Book publishes The Book of Mormon Study Guide: Start to Finish. It contains a lot of good material, but it’s another example of failing to tell members of the Church the whole story and guiding their thinking toward the Mesoamerican geography.

The General Editor is Thomas R. Valletta. Here is his bio, from the Deseret Book web page: https://deseretbook.com/p/book-of-mormon-study-guide-start-to-finish-ppr?variant_id=118342-paperback

“Thomas R. Valletta is the director of the Curriculum Services Division, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He heads a team of nine people who have been involved in this project over many years. He was the general editor of Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families, Great American Documents for Latter-day Saint Families, and other scripture study books in that same series.”

The book purports to be an effort to remain “neutral” regarding geography, but I’ll show you it is not only not neutral, it promotes the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory by keeping readers ignorant of what the prophets and apostles have taught.

Here is an example from the book, pages 589-599:

The top caption is “Zarahemla and the Land Northward.”

The caption below that is “Possible Book of Mormon Sites (in relation to each other)*“

The asterisk refers to the text in the lower left:

“*Possible relationships of sites in the Book of Mormon, based on internal evidence. No effort should be made to identify points on this map with any existing geographical location.“

Do you see the problems?

Not only does this discussion reject the New York Cumorah.

Not only does it promote a fantasy version of the Book of Mormon that supports the anti-Mormon position that the book is fiction.

But it also teaches a specific interpretation of the text, taken from the scholars who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, with the objective of imprinting this interpretation on readers. And this is from the Director of Curriculum for Seminaries and Institutes.

This map shows the River Sidon flowing northward, a key claim by the advocates of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that does not appear anywhere in the text. It also portrays the “narrow neck of land” as a not-so-narrow hourglass shape, another interpretation advocated by the Mesoamerican advocates because it fits Mesoamerica.

Aside from the Mesomania problem, we can’t underestimate the damage caused by these fantasy maps.

We should have learned long ago how to properly handle the anti-Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon is fiction. Instead, LDS intellectuals are supporting the anti-Mormon claim by encouraging students to think of the book as set in a make-believe world. They instruct students to not even try to associate the Book of Mormon “with any existing geographical location.”

Joseph and Oliver showed us a different approach.

When confronted with the fiction claim in 1834 (it was promoted in a well-known book published near Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834 titled Mormonism Unvailed [sic]), they wrote Letters VII and VIII. They declared it was a fact that the Book of Mormon Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) was located in western New York. The very hill where Joseph obtained the plates was also the site of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, and the location of Mormon’s depository of Nephite records.

Their focus on the factual location of Cumorah–something they knew from personal experience, as Brigham Young and others explained–repudiated the claim that the Book of Mormon was fiction.

But instead of following their example and supporting what Joseph and Oliver taught, our intellectuals are supporting the critics who teach that the Book of Mormon is fiction.

The Cumorah location does not specify the locations of other Book of Mormon sites, but it is a firm pin in the map that we should not remove, unless current Church leaders revoke what Joseph, Oliver, and all of their successors have taught.
_____

Regarding Cumorah, the book tells us this on page 738, which discusses Mormon 6:

Where was the “land of Cumorah”? (6:2-4) “There are many theories about precisely where the land of Cumorah was located, and those who advocate each view are very sure about their views. The North America theorists believe this is a clear reference to the Great Lakes and… the northeast part of the United States. The South America theorists posit that this is a reference to the plains of Imbabura in Ecuador’s lake country… The Mesoamerica theorists identify an area of southern Mexico on the eastern shore of the continent just north of the Yucatan Peninsula…. But when it comes to Book of Mormon geography, the only official statements that have been made by Church authorities say that we do not know” (Chase, Making Precious Things Plain, 3:212-13). 
_____

Let’s think about this a moment.

Do you see how this book conflates point 2 with point 1?

In other words, the book tries to persuade readers that because we don’t know the location of other Book of Mormon sites, we therefore don’t know the location of Cumorah.

That is exactly backward.

Instead, because we know the location of Cumorah, we should be seeking to understand the text in a way that corroborates and supports the prophets and apostles, not in a way that undermines their consistent teachings.

The intellectuals’ argument that “we don’t know where Cumorah is located” works only by keeping uninformed readers ignorant of Letter VII.

This Study Guide, like so many other books, is part of an intentional effort to keep members of the Church unaware of our history and the teachings of Joseph, Oliver, and all the other prophets and apostles.

This is the same technique being used right now at BYU and throughout CES. It is being used by FairMormon, BYU Studies, Book of Mormon Central [America], and other outlets for the theories of the intellectuals.

The book is equating the unambiguous, definitive statements of the prophets and apostles about Cumorah in New York, including those made in General Conference and consistently published in official Church publications, with the myriad academic theories about Cumorah’s location that repudiate what the prophets and apostles have said.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this post, it’s no wonder members of the Church (and investigators, and the world at large) are confused about the Book of Mormon. Joseph Fielding Smith warned that because of this theory (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory), members of the Church would become confused and disturbed in their faith. That warning is just as relevant today as it was when he first wrote it (and when he repeated it as President of the Quorum of the Twelve).

Think of the long-term impact of teaching the youth of the Church that the only way to understand the Book of Mormon is by imagining it in a fantasy world. Oh, and by the way, they also teach the youth that Joseph, Oliver, and all the other prophets and apostles were wrong about Cumorah.

Then compare that with the long-term impact of teaching the youth of the Church what Joseph and Oliver taught; i.e., that it is a fact that the Book of Mormon relates the actual history of real people whose demise occurred in a specific spot in western New York that you can still visit today. Oh, and by the way, this approach also supports the prophets and apostles by affirming they were correct about Cumorah.

Actually, we don’t have to think about the long-term impact of the teachings of the intellectuals. We see the evidence of it all around us.

Former Mormons tell us the main reason why they leave the Church is their loss of faith in the Book of Mormon; in fact, does anyone know someone who left the Church while still believing the Book of Mormon is true?

The teachings of the intellectuals compound the problem by undermining faith in the prophets and apostles, starting with Joseph Smith and the Three Witnesses.

This is a major issue for reactivation and retention, but also for missionary work. Questions about the Book of Mormon are a major impediment for investigators.

I often hear the argument that people need a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon, and of course that’s true.

But focusing on a spiritual testimony is not how Joseph and Oliver responded to the anti-Mormon claim that the book was fiction.

In fact, I’m not aware of any instance when Joseph quoted Moroni 10:4-5.

Instead, he taught that people would know the truth by abiding by the precepts of the book (an allusion to John 8:31-32), and he gave specific connections between the text and the real world, including Cumorah, the mounds in the Midwest, the plains of the Nephites, etc.

And he never once connected the Book of Mormon to Central or South America.

Despite all of this, our intellectuals continue to reject the unmistakable witness Joseph and Oliver gave us.
_____

*The Church has explained how members and the world at large can know what official Church doctrine is. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine.

“With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.”

This is exactly how Letter VII was presented. 

It was written and endorsed by the First Presidency in 1835.

It was accepted by the Quorum of the Twelve, who taught it for the rest of their lives.

Joseph had it copied into his own history as part of his life story.

It was consistently proclaimed in official Church publications, including the Messenger and Advocate, the Times and Seasons, the Millennial Star, the Prophet, the Gospel Reflector, and the Improvement Era.

For over 150 years, it has been consistently proclaimed by members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve speaking in General Conference, as well as in their books and articles.

It has never been modified or revoked.

But intellectuals in the Church don’t want members to even know about it, and when they do discover it, the intellectuals tell them not to believe it.

A recurring question is how much of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs propaganda is a result of intention and how much is a product of ignorance (and imprinting).

For example, look at the book Book of Mormon Reference Companion. It is available at Deseret Book for $50.99.

The General Editor is Dennis L. Largey, a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU since 1985.
https://religion.byu.edu/dennis_largey

Here is his bio, from the Deseret Book page:

Dennis L. Largey, also general editor of the Book of Mormon Reference Companion and the Doctrine and Covenants Reference Companion, is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and former chair of the department of Ancient Scripture. He has served in the educational system of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints for more than thirty-five years. Brother Largey joined the Religious Education faculty at BYU in 1985. His Church service includes counselor in two stake presidencies, bishop, branch president at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah, and member of the Church’s Materials Evaluation Committee.

We would expect Brother Largey to provide a fairly comprehensive and accurate reference book. This is 850 pages, published by Deseret Book, by a former chair of the department of Ancient Scripture at BYU. Associate Editors of the book include Marilyn Arnold, Terry B. Ball, Larry E. Dahl, Donald W. Parry, David R. Seely, and Clyde J. Williams.

But look at what the “Reference Companion” says about the Hill Cumorah, on page 223:

“Some modern scholars believe there are two Cumorahs, one in Central America where the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place and where Mormon hid all the records, and a second hill in New York State where the gold plates were deposited by Moroni and where Joseph Smith received them from the angel Moroni (Palmer, 346-47).”

The so-called “Reference Companion” never once mentions the single most detailed description of Cumorah that we have in the Church; i.e., Letter VII, which was published in 1835. No wonder “Cumorah seemed to be well-known” in 1835: in Letter VII, the “New York hill” was specifically identified by the First Presidency as the site of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, as well as Mormon’s depository (Mormon 6:6). Joseph Smith made sure all Church members in his day knew about Cumorah by having Letter VII reprinted in every official Church newspaper, as well as private newspapers owned by Church members.

No one reading this “Reference Companion” would learn anything about Letter VII.

To be sure, the entry on Cumorah does mention that Joseph found the plates there. On page 222 it includes this: “Brigham Young reported that when Joseph returned the plates, ‘the hill opened, and they walked into a … large and spacious room… [containing] more plates than probably many wagon loads’ (Young, 19:38).”

But the scholars explain this away as a “vision” of a hill in Mexico. The book doesn’t provide the numerous other accounts that corroborate what Brigham said. Instead, it gives the views of the scholars without once mentioning Letter VII.

It’s difficult to imagine that Brother Largey and the other editors and contributors are ignorant of Letter VII. After all, they specifically referred to 1835, the year when Letter VII was published.

They made a conscious decision to omit it.
_____

If there’s any lingering question about intention vs ignorance, look at an additional edit made in the “Reference Companion.” Right after giving us the views of “modern scholars,” the book tells us this:

“Just when this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine, but by 1835 the name Cumorah seemed to be well-known, at least among Church members. Joseph Smith referred to the hill but only used the name Cumorah once in his personal writings: ‘Glad tidings from Cumorah!’ (D&C 128:20).”

The “difficult to determine” narrative is a pretext for the two-Cumorahs theory. Notice how Brother Largey deliberately edited out a key reference that contradicts his “difficult to determine” narrative.

On page 11 of the “Reference Companion” we read this:

Joseph replied, “I have taken the severest chastisement that I have ever had in my life.” Father Smith, surmising that the mob element in the area was harassing his son, retorted, “I would like to know what business anybody has to find fault with you!” Joseph countered, “Stop, father, stop, it was the angel of the Lord.” The angelic messenger told him that he “had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to be brought forth; and that [he] must be up and doing and set [himself] about the things which God had commanded [him] to do” (Smith, Joseph, 100).”

Now, look at the original source and see how carefully Brother Largey edited out the early reference to Cumorah. The omitted part of the quotation is in red below.

Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”. My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”
“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to <be> brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do:”

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111

If you read about Church history and the Book of Mormon in publications written by BYU professors, published by Deseret Book, you need to be aware that you are getting material that has been carefully scrutinized and edited to promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.  
___

Here’s one more example. The “Reference Companion” cites Lucy Mack Smith’s book, History of Joseph Smith, but doesn’t tell readers that according to Lucy, Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah before Joseph even obtained the plates. “There is a record for you, Joseph, but you cannot get it until you learn to keep the commandments of God, for it is not to get gain, but it is to bring forth that light and intelligence which has been long lost in the earth. Now, Joseph, beware or when you go to get the plates, your mind will be filled with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind to prevent you from keeping the commandments of God. You must tell your father of this, for he will believe every word you say. The record is on a side of the hill of Cumorah, three miles from this place. Remove the grass and moss, and you will find the record under it, lying on four pillars of cement.”

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41

I mentioned before that the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, as awesome as it is, includes a few displays that are misleading because they reflect Mesomania.

I visited the Museum again today and noticed that a problematic display still hasn’t changed.

The display depicted below discusses the 1830 mission to the Lamanites, but refers to it as “The Indian Mission.” This is fine, in the sense that the general public today does not know who the Lamanites are.

The problem is, many LDS people don’t know this either. But they should, if they know the scriptures and Church history.

Why don’t they?

Because of the influence of Mesomania. Our intellectuals who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory don’t want people to realize that the Doctrine and Covenants identifies the Indians living in 1830 New York, Ohio, and Missouri as Lamanites. These are the only people specifically identified in the scriptures as Lamanites.

Nowhere do the scriptures refer to Mayans (or anyone else) as Lamanites.

The scriptural fact that the tribes in the Northeaster U.S. (the Missouri Indians had been removed there by the Federal government) are the Lamanites undermines the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory. That’s why this display says what it does.

I don’t think Mesomania is a valid excuse for continuing to mislead patrons of the museum.
_____

The Lord called Oliver Cowdery to go on a mission to the Lamanites in D&C 28:8

8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.

D&C 30:5-6 tells Peter Whitmer to join Oliver:

5 Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you.

6 And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites.

D&C 32 adds Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson to the mission:

1 And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learn of me, and be meek and lowly of heart.

2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.

3 And Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their advocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them.

Now, look closer at the text:

Early Church members believed the Indians were Lamanites?

What about current Church members? There are some among us who still believe the Doctrine and Covenants, but this display doesn’t account for that. It refers only to “early Church members,” as though the teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants reflects a quaint folk belief instead of an actual revelation.

What about the Lord Himself? After all, it was the Lord who gave these regulations to Joseph Smith.

Notice, too, that the last sentence implies that the missionaries shared this naive folk belief: “which the missionaries presented as a record of the Indians’ ancestors.”

The missionaries did this because the Lord told them to do so when they were called on their missions. Joseph taught the Indians the same thing; i.e., that the Book of Mormon was written by their fathers and was a record of their ancestors.

I still hope the Church History Museum corrects this display and includes the language from the scriptures instead of the Mesomania-inspired commentary.

This blog hopes to promote a consensus about Book of Mormon geography/historicity.

It turns out, there is already a consensus, at least regarding Cumorah. Everyone agrees that the prophets and apostles have taught one thing, while our LDS intellectuals teach something else.

Another way to say it is, there are two consensuses.

All the prophets and apostles who have addressed the issue agree that Cumorah is in New York. Their consistent teachings have focused on New York like a laser, as depicted below.

Many LDS intellectuals, particularly those who claim to be “Book of Mormon scholars” and who run Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, FairMormon, the Interpreter, etc., and who teach at BYU, have reached a consensus that the prophets and apostles are wrong. Instead of the prophets’ laser-like focus on New York, the intellectuals in the Church teach people to search somewhere in southern Mexico (or in a fantasy world map) for the “real Cumorah,” as shown below.*

The two consensuses

Members of the Church are left to decide which consensus they agree with.

For me, it’s an easy choice. I go with the prophets and apostles.

I think most Church members, when presented with a choice, will also agree with the prophets and apostles.

That’s why the intellectuals don’t want to give members a choice. They actively suppress information about the New York Cumorah in all their publications, presentations, and even in classes at BYU and in CES. They censor comments on their web pages that refer to the New York Cumorah, seek to prevent people from speaking about the New York Cumorah, and promote obfuscation and confusion on their web pages about Cumorah.

Eventually, that will change; thanks to the Internet, it is becoming more difficult for the intellectuals to prevent members of the Church from learning the truth. But in the meantime, you should think carefully and make up your own mind.

As always, if I’ve erred in any way on the facts in this post, let me know and I’ll promptly correct any errors.
_____
* While most LDS intellectuals promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, I know of some who actually believe the prophets and apostles, but they don’t speak out because of the united front of opposition they face from the Mesomaniacs. There are also some intellectuals who promote other non-New York Cumorahs, such as Cumorahs in Baja, Panama, Chile, etc. Plus there is the infamous BYU “abstract map” that teaches students that Cumorah is in a fictional fantasy land, which you can see here: http://bom.byu.edu/. This map is an obvious ruse for teaching the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory because it is based on the standard Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs interpretation of the text.

No, I’m not referring to the leaders of the Church.

We’ve been in Australia and we visited the 12 Apostles on the southern coast, west of Melbourne.