Author: Jonathan Neville

I’ve pointed out that the first time mountains are even mentioned as existing in the New World is in Helaman 11. Even then, the “mountains” are such that the robbers can “sally forth” out of them, which I infer means the mountains were not all that high. Prior to Helaman 11, references to mountains are quotations from or allusions to the scriptures; i.e., the Old Testament.

I’ve also observed that D&C 117:8 refers to “mountains” in Missouri:

“Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?”

Some have pointed to the prophecies of Samuel the Lamanite regarding mountains:

Helaman 14:23
“23 And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great.”

However, when the destruction is described in 3 Nephi, no such mountains are mentioned. 3 Nephi 8:10 says a “great mountain” was formed when “the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah.” This is earth coming from above–upon–the city, not emerging from below. (We think this is an example of a massive sand blow, a typical earthquake feature in the Midwest.) Samuel’s prophecy was surely fulfilled, but not all in Book of Mormon territory.

IOW, once we set aside the Mesomania-inspired traditions, the scriptures do not describe lots of big mountains in Book of Mormon lands.

Instead, the text describes relatively low, habitable mountains that many of us would call hills.

Along these lines, it’s interesting to read what Joseph Smith once wrote about the “mountains of Missouri.” Those who have visited Missouri know what those mountains are like.

They’re like the ones in Illinois.

And they’re like the ones described in the Book of Mormon text.

This reference to mountains is from a sermon attributed to Joseph Smith, recorded by Martha Coray. It is dated July 11 (or 19) 1840, but was almost certainly recorded well after that date. Perhaps it was copied from an earlier notebook.

“I prophecy that the time shall be when these saints shall ride proudly over the mountains of Missouri and no Gentile dog nor Missouri dog shall dare lift a tongue against them but will lick up the dust from beneath their feet.”

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2059347

Image MS 1998_f0001_00022.jpg.

The two groups who desire to impeach Joseph and Oliver are:

Group A. Those who believe Cumorah is not in New York.

Group B. Those who believe Cumorah does not exist.

Group A includes faithful LDS scholars, educators and members who believe Cumorah is not in New York because it is in Baja, Southern Mexico, Panama, Chile, Peru, or any of a number of other locations, so long as it is not in New York.

Group B includes detractors (anti-Mormons) who believe Cumorah is not in New York because because it doesn’t exist; i.e., the Book of Mormon is pure fiction.*

The difference between these two groups is one of degree. Group A seeks to impeach Joseph, Oliver, David Whitmer, Lucy Mack Smith and others on the narrow issue of Cumorah being in New York. Group B also seeks to impeach Joseph, Oliver, etc. on the issue of Cumorah, but seeks to extend that impeachment to everything else they wrote about.

In my view, Group A is a precursor to Group B, meaning that if you accept Group A, it’s much easier to also accept Group B.

This progression becomes clear in the following three syllogisms. The first one is the one I posted a few days ago to explain the Moroni’s America point of view. The subsequent two show the similarities and differences between Group A and Group B.

Several of these I hadn’t seen before, and they are very important for those interested in the Book of Mormon geography question.

For years, Mesoamerican advocates have claimed Joseph Smith i) wrote the anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons that linked the Book of Mormon to Central America and ii) wrote a letter to Dr. John Bernhisel of New York that suggested Joseph read Stephens’ books about Central America and approved of those books as evidence of the Book of Mormon.

I think both of those claims are false.

I explained my reasoning and the detailed historical evidence in my books The Lost City of Zarahemla, Brought to Light, and The Editors: Joseph, William, and Don Carlos Smith. For those not familiar with those books, they discuss the detailed historical evidence that supports my assertions that:

1. Everything Joseph Smith taught about Book of Mormon geography related to a North American setting.

2. Joseph never connected Central America to the Book of Mormon.

3. Everything that links the Book of Mormon to Central America cannot be linked directly to Joseph Smith.

These new 1842 documents support the positions I took in those books.

I blogged about the detail here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2016/11/1842-bernhisel-letters-released-by-jsp.html

and here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2016/11/1842-benjamin-winchester-letter.html
________________

I don’t know how many people still believe the Mesoamerican theory that is being promoted by Book of Mormon Central and a handful of scholars. I expect the number to continue to dwindle, for many reasons.

It’s fascinating to watch as the Mesoamerican theory just keeps disintegrating before our eyes.

Everyone who has read the Book of Mormon knows it never mentions volcanoes, jungles, pyramids, or even buildings made of stone. No mention of jade, jaguars, tapirs. There is literally nothing in the text that relates to Central America in any way (beyond generic mention of mountains, rivers, and rain, which describe pretty much everywhere on the planet). This is why including depictions of Mesoamerica in the missionary editions is so problematic; they raise expectations that the text does not meet.

So why look at Central America?

I’ve asked Mesoamerican proponents this question, and here are typical answers.

1. Because Joseph Smith said Zarahemla as in Guatemala. As we all know by now, this claim refers to the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons. For all the reasons I’ve discussed, it is well established now that Joseph didn’t write or edit those articles. Not even John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff thought he did. The long-held belief that he wrote those articles is a historical mistake, evident now thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers. Beyond that, though, LDS scholars and educators reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the Hill Cumorah being in New York, so why would they care what Joseph said about anything related to geography?

2. Because early Church members wrote about Central America. It’s true that W.W. Phelps, the Pratt brothers, William Smith, John E. Page, Benjamin Winchester, and others wrote about Central America. But it’s also true that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not. In fact, in the Wentworth letter, Joseph edited out Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model to specify that the Lamanites are the Indians that live in this country (the U.S.). Early Church authors had two objectives. First, discoveries of exotic ruins discovered in Central America excited the public and these authors thought linking the ruins to the Book of Mormon would attract readers (and converts). Second, they sought to counter anti-Mormon arguments that Joseph had copied (or used) the work of other authors to create the Book of Mormon. These other authors were incorporating aspects of the Moundbuilder legends, and critics saw many similarities between these legends and the Book of Mormon. Today, we realize the text has important differences from those legends. Plus, we realize we would expect legends to reflect Book of Mormon history if the events took place in North America.

3. Because there are correspondences between Mayans and Book of Mormon people. LDS scholars and educators have compiled lists of what they call “correspondences” between their interpretations of the Book of Mormon text and features of ancient Mayan civilization. These correspondences require two elements: first, the assumption that Joseph mistranslated the text (e.g., by dictating horses instead of tapirs) and second, the assumption that these features are unique to the two cultures. However, these correspondences are features common in many human cultures. We could find similar correspondences between many ancient civilizations and the text.

4. Because the text describes an isthmus, which is only found in Central America. The Mesoamerican proponents assume three terms in the text are referring to the same geographical feature, and that it’s an isthmus: small neck of land, narrow neck, and narrow neck of land. The also assume that the phrase “nearly surrounded by water” can only mean “nearly surrounded by seas.” While those assumptions are not irrational, they are not required. There is an alternative assumption that disqualifies Central America; i.e., the assumption that different terms refer to different features.

5. Because the text doesn’t describe North America. As we all know by now, the text describes North America quite well, once you assume different terms refer to different features.

6. Because Cumorah cannot be in New York. This has become perhaps the most fundamental reason for looking in Central America. The conclusion is based primarily on the work of two LDS authors: David A. Palmer and John Clark. I’ve previously posted comments on their work, but I’m going to re-post them soon with additional evidence. My conclusion is that their work has never been carefully evaluated before because it confirmed the biases of Mesoamerican proponents. Contrary to their conclusions, the hill in New York matches the description in the text.
__________________________

If anyone knows of another reason to look in Central America, I’d like to know about it.

Is it in New York or elsewhere?

This topic has been debated for decades, without resolution.** The debate focuses on different interpretations of 1) the text, 2) various statements by Joseph’s contemporaries, and 3) real-world evidence. Each of these offers enough variety that scholars are in a neverending loop that is confusing to many people.

This confusion has obscured the fundamental premises of the two positions about Cumorah.

I propose three sets of syllogisms*** to simplify and clarify the discussion. Due to time constraints, I put them in a video, here. It’s faster to talk through them than to write everything out in this blog.
________________________

Below is the first set of syllogisms (syllogism A) to give you an idea of the approach.

I frame the arguments in terms of  true/false and equals/not equals. In the video I explain how the syllogisms are constructed and applied. Each set begins with a premise both sides agree with. Premise 2 reflects the different assumptions made by each side, which logically lead to the conclusions each side reaches.

The syllogisms represent the views of two major groups. One, Mesoamerican, represents all those who agree the Hill Cumorah is not in New York. This includes Mesoamerica, Baja, Panama, Chile, and many other variations of non-New York models. The other, Moroni’s America, represents all those who agree the Hill Cumorah is in New York. This includes Heartland, North American, and many other variations of New York based geographic models.

Based on published material, I think both groups will agree with each point I make in the syllogisms once they go through the explanations. I’ve tried to be fair and accurate, so I welcome additional ideas and corrections.

Important: The syllogisms do not produce a right or wrong conclusion. The designations of True and False are terms of logic, not a comment on the merits of the premises or conclusions. 

The objective is to clarify the assumptions and logic both sides use to reach their respective conclusions, not to say one is right and one is wrong.

For example, in syllogism A, Premise 1 shows that both sides agree that Joseph, Oliver, and other Church leaders claimed Cumorah was in New York.****

This is shown by “Joseph, Oliver, etc. = New York Cumorah.”

In Premise 2, the Moroni’s America approach assumes Joseph and Oliver were correct (Joseph, Oliver, etc. = true), which logically leads to the conclusion that Cumorah is in New York (New York Cumorah = true).

In Premise 2, the Mesoamerican approach assumes Cumorah is not in New York (New York Cumorah = false), which logically leads to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver were incorrect (Joseph, Oliver, etc. = false).

Here’s syllogism A.

The other big mistake involves Letter VII. It was a mistake to lose sight of that important letter that was so well known and accepted during Joseph’s lifetime and thereafter. It was a mistake to reject it. And it is an ongoing mistake to assert that Joseph, Oliver and the others were merely speculating and wrong about the New York Cumorah.

What do we do when such mistakes have been made?

We have basically two choices.

1) We can correct the mistakes, or

2) We can resist correcting the mistakes and perpetuate them for as long as possible.

I hope we will chose the former and correct them. Soon.
____________

I don’t think there’s a single LDS scholar or educator who wants to mislead anyone. The intellectual history of the Mesoamerican theory shows a logical progression of thought, all well-intentioned, as people sought to reconcile what they thought Joseph Smith taught with the facts on the ground. But good intentions are not good enough.

IMO, once the scholars and educators jettisoned Letter VII, they were left on their own; in fact, they have gone so far as to claim that Joseph himself thought the questions could be answered only by scholarship and science. They have overtly rejected Letter VII in favor of their own ideas and interpretations of the text.

I don’t think we were left without prophetic guidance on this matter. Joseph Fielding Smith’s warning about the two-Cumorah theory, and his citation of Letter VII, should have at least caused the scholars and educators to pause and rethink their approach.

But it didn’t.

The problem became more acute in the 1950s and 1960s with the creation and dissemination of the Arnold Friberg paintings. That’s when Mesomania became widespread in the Church. Since then, generations of Latter-day Saints have been trained to think of the Book of Mormon in that framework.

The psychological impact is profound and largely overlooked. But the confusion which Joseph Fielding Smith warned has become endemic in LDS culture. It has a serious impact on missionary work, retention, and activity because, as President Smith warned, the two-Cumorahs theory causes members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.
________________

Now, it’s up to the scholars and educators to fix the mistakes made by their predecessors. No one is to blame; we’ve all felt the impact of Mesomania. But going forward, we are all responsible for how we deal with Letter VII.

It won’t take much to correct the mistakes, and it shouldn’t be difficult.

All that’s needed is for the scholars and educators to accept Letter VII.

At that point, we would have unity throughout the Church. There would be no more articles written by faithful LDS scholars and educators trying to explain why Joseph and Oliver and David Whitmer and the rest were speculating, were unreliable witnesses, and all the rest.

We would no longer have faithful scholars saying Joseph’s successors were also speculating and wrong, or that other modern apostles were wrong when they spoke about the New York Cumorah in General Conference as recently as 1975 and 1978.

We would have tremendous unity about the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph and Oliver and every other prophet and apostle who has spoken on the issue.

If that unity is not worth correcting mistakes, then what is?

Another way to say it: Is perpetuating mistakes really more important than fostering unity?
________________

Accepting Letter VII does not commit the Church or any individuals to any particular setting for the Book of Mormon (except, obviously, to the location of the final battles). People can still believe and advocate their own theories, from as small as western New York to as large as the entire hemisphere.

But at least we would be united in supporting the prophets and apostles who have spoken on the issue of Cumorah. 

And we would eliminate a tremendous amount of confusion.
________________

If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it been done?

Every scholar and educator may have his/her own reasons, but here are the ones I hear the most often.

1. The hill in New York doesn’t match the text. This objection is based almost entirely on a handful of sources, each of which I’ve addressed in detail. In the interests of comity, I won’t name them here, but feel free to email me if you don’t know what I’m referring to. IMO, this objection is based on bad information and can be easily resolved.

2. Mesoamerica is too far away from Cumorah. This objection assumes that most Book of Mormon events took place in Central America, but that’s all it is: an assumption. Does anyone really want to reject Letter VII over a mere assumption? Besides, there are smart people who have assembled a theory of geography that accommodates both.

3. I’ve been teaching this for years and can’t change now. The rejection of Letter VII started nearly a century ago. Generations of Latter-day Saints have been taught the Mesoamerican theory by well-meaning, conscientious teachers. But we shouldn’t be sad about good scholarship. Rejecting the rejection of Letter VII is an opportunity to build faith where it has been lost. We should be glad to present better information to our students and to one another. We should be enthusiastic about it. What’s done is done. Tradition is no reason to subject new generations to the doubt and confusion that arises from the two-Cumorah theory.

4. There are so many correspondences to Mesoamerica. There are three considerations here. First, a Meosamerican setting is not necessarily incompatible with the New York Cumorah just because some scholars have made that argument. Second, these correspondences can be explained by the hinterlands theory. Third, we need to re-examine these correspondences to see if they are really specific to Lehite culture or are simply examples common to many human societies.

5. I’ve had spiritual experiences in Mesoamerica. People have had spiritual experiences in many parts of the world that they associate with the Book of Mormon. Likening the scripture to ourselves is what makes the book so powerful and life-changing, but we ought not deem those spiritual experiences as proof of Book of Mormon geography. If that were the case, then how could we explain people having similar experiences in many different parts of the world?

There may be additional objections I haven’t listed here, but ultimately, can any objection be more important than restoring the unity and clarity that once prevailed on this issue?

In Joseph’s day, members of the Church had plenty of disagreements about plenty of things. Joseph expressed his frustration at getting the Saints to understand what he was trying to teach them.

But he had no problem with the New York Cumorah because he made sure everyone knew about and read Letter VII.

So let this be my plea to the LDS scholars, educators, and teachers everywhere in the Church, as well as members everywhere, that we read and accept Letter VII’s teachings about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

________________
* There are many possible reasons why Joseph didn’t correct them. Not that it matters to the main issue, but he may have simply had too many other things to worry about in 1842 Nauvoo; he may have wanted to avoid destroying the credibility of the Times and Seasons and hoped people would forget the articles about Zarahemla in Guatemala (which, in fact, happened until the articles were revived in the early 20th Century); he may have known that there was Lamanite influence in Central America that post-dated Book of Mormon time frames; he may have wanted to avoid another source of infighting among the brethren; and he may have tried to correct them but encountered resistance that wasn’t worth the fight. I think a combination of these factors was involved, but of course that’s mostly speculation. We can be pretty confident that neither John Taylor nor Wilford Woodruff thought Joseph authored the 1842 Zarahemla article or they wouldn’t have approved Orson Pratt’s footnotes in the official edition of the Book of Mormon that suggested Zarahemla was further south of Guatemala. At any rate, it’s clear everyone accepted the New York setting for Cumorah, and presumably Joseph thought that was the most important point for everyone to understand. 

Both of these techniques have been applied to Letter VII. In this post, I outline the reason why Letter VII is so devastating to the Mesoamerican theory and the two-Cumorahs theory on which it depends.
____________________

The first tactic toward Letter VII is to suppress and/or ignore it. When you read Letter VII, you can see why Mesoamerican advocates have done everything possible to hide it from their readers and members of the Church generally.

It’s almost as if Joseph and Oliver knew that in the distant future, after they and all their contemporaries died off, LDS scholars would go to great lengths to deny what they taught. 

Notice how Oliver and Joseph describe the hill so there can be no ambiguity, either for their contemporaries or for future readers:

“You are acquainted with the mail road from Palmyra, Wayne Co. to Canandaigua, Ontario Co. N. Y. and also, as you pass from the former to the latter place, before arriving at the little village of Manchester, say from three to four, or about four miles from Palmyra, you pass a large hill on the east side of the road. Why I say large, is, because it is as large perhaps, as any in that country. To a person acquainted with this road, a description would be unnecessary, as it is the largest and rises the highest of any on that route. The north end rises quite sudden until it assumes a level with the more southerly extremity, and I think I may say an elevation higher than at the south a short distance, say half or three fourths of a mile. As you pass toward Canandaigua it lessens gradually until the surface assumes its common level, or is broken by other smaller hills or ridges, water courses and ravines. I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round, and I am certain that its appearance, as it rises so suddenly from a plain on the north, must attract the notice of the traveller as he passes by.“

Two points come to mind here.

First, Joseph and Oliver could have drawn a map and inserted it into the letter, but they didn’t. Perhaps that would have been difficult to print under their circumstances, so instead they provided this detailed description of the hill so anyone who visits the area could find it. I’ve often wondered why Mormon and/or Moroni didn’t just draw a map on the plates to save all the space they needed to write out descriptions. Of course, they may have, but the seer stone gave Joseph words to read instead.

Or, which I think is more likely, Mormon and Moroni knew they were going to give Joseph and Oliver a pin in the map from which we could figure out the rest from the written descriptions they gave.

Did they know LDS scholars would reject the pin? More likely, such an idea would be unthinkable to them. But I suspect Joseph and Oliver had an inkling, so they wrote out this long, clear description.

Second, Oliver seems to anticipate some of the objections that would be raised by future LDS scholars, who say the Hill Cumorah is not significant enough to fit the text. Notice, Oliver emphasizes “it is the largest and risest the highest of any on that route.” Then he reiterates that “this is the highest hill for some distance round.” Yet I often hear, as recently as last week, from people who have never visited the area, that the hill is insignificant.
_______________

Not content to describe just the hill, Oliver continues with a description of the actual scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites. Again, he uses unambiguous specificity. I think he’s trying to inoculate the Saints against the future efforts of first the RLDS scholars, and then the LDS scholars, to deny what he and Joseph sought to establish; i.e., the specific location of the Hill Cumorah in New York.

“At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.

“By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the Book of Mormon, you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. (It is printed Camorah, which is an error.) In this valley fell the remaining strength and pride of a once powerful people, the Nephites—once so highly favored of the Lord, but at that time in darkness, doomed to suffer extermination by the hand of their barbarous and uncivilized brethren. From the top of this hill, Mormon, with a few others, after the battle, gazed with horror upon the mangled remains of those who, the day before, were filled with anxiety, hope, or doubt. A few had fled to the South, who were hunted down by the victorious party, and all who would not deny the Savior and his religion, were put to death. Mormon himself, according to the record of his son Moroni, was also slain.

“But a long time previous to this national disaster it appears from his own account, he foresaw approaching destruction. In fact, if he perused the records of his fathers, which were in his possession, he could have learned that such would be the case. Alma, who lived before the coming of the Messiah, prophesies this. He however, by Divine appointment, abridged from those records, in his own style and language, a short account of the more important and prominent items, from the days of Lehi to his own time, after which he deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, all the records in this same hill, Cumorah, and after gave his small record to his son Moroni, who, as appears from the same, finished it, after witnessing the extinction of his people as a nation…

“This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: by it, or around it, pitched the famous army of Coriantumr their tent. Coriantumr was the last king of the Jaredites. The opposing army were to the west, and in this same valley, and near by. From day to day, did that mighty race spill their blood, in wrath, contending as it were, brother against brother, and father against son. In this same spot, in full view from the top of this same hill, one may gaze with astonishment upon the ground which was twice covered with the dead and dying of our fellowmen.”
_______________________

It’s difficult to imagine how Oliver and Joseph could have been more explicit, or how they could have made this more widely known to the Saints than they did through repeated republication, including in Philadelphia and England. Joseph referenced it in what became D&C 128.

Perhaps they should have included a specific warning, addressed to the future Saints, to beware of scholars and educators who would reject and suppress their teachings about Cumorah. But maybe they knew such a warning, just like the warning of a future Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, would go unheeded.

The clarity of Letter VII explains why the scholars and educators have sought to suppress it and ignore it. But they have a fallback position for those who inquire enough to discover Letter VII. They seek to impeach the witnesses.

That’s the topic of my other post at the mesomania blog, here.

This leaves it up to us, the ordinary rank and file of the Church, to read Letter VII and make our own choices about whom to believe.

You can probably think of other reasons, but I boil them down to two main categories: supply and demand. I’ll take them in reverse order; i.e., first I’ll look at the demand for more information/clarity, then I’ll look at the supply of more information/clarity.

1. Urgency (demand). Like many Latter-day Saints, I feel a sense of urgency about this issue. You probably do too. We’re all concerned about the ongoing confusion that the two-Cumorahs theory sows among the Saints and among investigators. I guestimate that about 90% of active LDS accept pretty much whatever they’re told about the topic; i.e., their primary, Sunday School, seminary, Institute or BYU teacher (or parents) told them the Book of Mormon took place in Central America, using Church-approved artwork, so they accept it and move on without questioning.

Around 10% question what they’re told and don’t believe it for any of a number of reasons.

(BTW, I think Letter VII would reverse these numbers, if it were widely known. The number of people who would question the Mesoamerican theory after reading Letter VII in the context of teachings of the modern prophets and apostles would approach 90%, which explains why the scholars and educators have suppressed Letter VII, as I’ve shown in my video series.)

Another reason for urgency is the societal trend toward empiricism and away from faith. In the early days of the Church, missionaries used the Bible to prove the Book of Mormon because most people believed the Bible. Now, hardly anyone believes the Bible, so that approach doesn’t work. Instead, it will be the unique divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon that proves the Bible. That’s the topic of a book I’m working on, but I can’t publish until we LDS get our act together and agree on the historicity and geography of the Book of Mormon.

Yet another reason is the Internet, as the following scenarios illustrate. These are typical of what happens thousands of times on a regular basis.

Imagine you’re not LDS and missionaries come to your door. They tell you about the Book of Mormon. You’ve heard about it, but don’t know much about it. They leave you with the missionary edition. You thumb through the illustrations. You see Alma baptizing in a mountainous, jungle wilderness. You see Samuel preaching from the top of an enormous Mayan stone wall. You see Christ appearing to Mayans among Mayan ruins (with Chichen Itza in the background). You don’t know much about ancient history, but you did learn about Mayans, and maybe you’ve visited Cancun, so you get the picture. You actually visited Chichen Itza and you’re curious about the connection with those ruins and the Book of Mormon.

Then you start reading. 1 Nephi starts out interesting, with the family fleeing Jerusalem, but then it gets into a weird apocalyptic vision. Next are long quotation from Isaiah. You wonder where the Mayans are.

You get on the Internet and in 30 seconds, you find out the Mormons actually have no idea where the Book of Mormon events took place. Web pages explain that the first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, said the Hill Cumorah was in New York, but the LDS scholars now say he was confused and didn’t know what he was talking about. You discover that, despite the illustrations in the book the missionaries gave you, the text actually says nothing about Mayans, pyramids, or jungles. The web pages claim the Mormons can’t even agree among themselves about the geography because the work is fiction written by Joseph Smith and others.

The missionaries call to confirm the next appointment and, because they’re such nice, idealistic kids and you don’t want to hurt their feelings, you tell them you don’t have time to see them right now. They call a few more times, and you finally tell them you’re not interested.

Imagine you’re a missionary, and you regularly run into former Mormons and well-prepared Christians who tell you the Book of Mormon is fiction. They tell you you’re wasting your time, and they refer you to the Internet to see for yourself. You don’t take their advice at first, but after months of this, you and your companion decide you need to be prepared for the objections you keep encountering.

You look up FairMormon.

You find out that the anti-Mormon literature is correct.

FairMormon and the LDS scholars cited there do actually say Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. were speculating, didn’t know what they were talking about, and were wrong. You remember what your seminary, Institute, and BYU teachers told you about Mesoamerica and now you realize for the first time that theory contradicts what Joseph, Oliver and the others said.

You read Letter VII and you’re shocked you were never told about this before. You always thought it was far-fetched to believe Moroni hauled the heavy plates and other artifacts to New York from southern Mexico, but you accepted it on faith. Letter VII makes a lot more sense, but it contradicts everything your Church teachers have told you. You start to wonder: if they were wrong about the Hill Cumorah, what else were they wrong about? Soon you question everything your teachers told you. You still don’t have answers for the antagonistic people you meet every day; in fact, you have more questions than answers.

You tell your companions about Letter VII. Some agree it’s a problem, but most think you’re an apostate for even reading something like that. Your Mission President gets angry when you ask about it and doesn’t answer your questions. He says your teachers were right, and whatever this Letter VII is, it’s not approved by the Church.

You return home and make excuses for missing Church meetings and before you know it, you’re no longer active in the Church.
_______________

These are just two of any number of similar scenarios that happen all the time, all around the world.

Hence, the sense of urgency. It’s time for us to get our act together and stop promoting theories of geography that contradict Joseph and Oliver and the other prophets and apostles.
________________

2. More evidence (supply). The Joseph Smith Papers project has brought many things to light that were previously unknown. I’ve been following the geography debates for over 40 years. Not once did anyone tell me Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Letter VII into his own history as part of his story. (Not that anyone mentioned Letter VII at all–it has been suppressed from every Church history resource I had access to, not to mention FARMS, FairMormon, and the rest. It was available in the Times and Seasons, a set of which I purchased when I was in my 20s, but I didn’t realize that.)

Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers, we can trace all the Church history I described in The Lost City of Zarahemla, Brought to Light, and The Editors: Joseph, William, and Don Carlos Smith. I couldn’t have written those books without the Joseph Smith Papers as a resource.

The newly accessible historical data has helped us distinguish between what Joseph actually taught and what was merely attributed to him. That, in turn, has eliminated much of the confusion about the issue.

[See my comments on sowing confusion here.]

We also have more evidence than ever before in terms of archaeology, anthropology, geography, and geology. More is coming out all the time. For example, just three weeks ago an important discovery was made about a Hopewell (Nephite) mound complex (details to come).

In a real sense, faith precedes the miracle here. IMO, as more and more LDS refocus on what Joseph, Oliver (and other latter-day prophets and apostles) have said, instead of relying on the scholars and educators who reject them, even more evidence will come forward.

Understanding the Mesomania issue helps with this process, as well. We don’t blame anyone for perpetuating the Mesoamerican and other non-NewYork-Cumorah theories. We understand the intellectual history and the psychology involved. Nothing about this is personal.

But we seek clarity and all the new evidence explains things pretty well.

– Yes, Oliver Cowdery did unequivocally state in Letter VII that the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) was in New York.
– Yes, Joseph did assist in writing these historical letters, had them copied into his own history, and approved their republication.
– Yes, every other statement that can be directly attributed to Joseph supported Letter VII.
– Yes, Oliver did tell Brigham Young about the records repository in the Hill Cumorah.
– No, Joseph didn’t write unattributed articles in the Times and Seasons, so we can throw those out.
– No, it’s not possible, feasible (or even a good idea) to concoct an abstract map using the text without reference to Cumorah as a pin in the map because such an effort is inherently subjective and depends on subjective interpretations of every term used in the text.
– No, Joseph and Oliver were not merely speculating. Nor were all the other Latter-day prophets and apostles who have spoken about the New York Cumorah.

This is merely an overview of the growing supply of solid information.

Hence, the need to get our act together and stop promoting theories of geography that contradict the evidence, along with Joseph and Oliver and the other prophets and apostles.