Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

The 1832 history and Robin Jensen

An excellent twitter thread by Robin Jensen explains the issues regarding the 1832 history.

https://twitter.com/rsjensen12345/status/1493025631637966854?fbclid=IwAR2xM3k1NEMGyt9vDLZQ-N6pr_KTyuEEYG15REap3Q06TxjXLHhh4aBAXHc

Robin’s an awesome historian. Because a lot of people don’t use twitter, and because Twitter is so unreliable, I’m archiving the thread in this post so I can refer to it whenever this issue arises.

I’ve inserted a few comments in red and emphasized some points in bold.

Robin Jensen

@rsjensen12345

Joseph Smith’s 1832 History is often cited as an example of the LDS Church hiding its past. Every time I hear this I get annoyed–but not for the reasons you might think. So, a (very) long thread for those who want to think critically about access and LDS archival records:

First, a bit of context: Joseph Smith’s first [known] “major” history was created in 1832. While not much for most historical figures of note (only 6 pages in length), this history contains Smith’s own writing (a rarity) and is Smith’s first [known] attempt at an introspective autobiography. 2/?

The 1832 hist was captured at the beginning of a blank book later used as Smith’s first letterbook. Like many records of JS’s early movement, the record was (and is) owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was not available until the mid-to late 20th c. 3/?

At some point in the early to mid 20th century, the 1832 history was excised from the volume. The Joseph Smith Papers does a bit of sleuthing showing how we know the timing of the removal.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note
1) The 1832 history was removed from its volume in the 20th century, 2) the volume was held by the Church Historian’s Office, and 3) the 1832 history only surfaced in the 1960s.

Therefore many have come to the conclusion that Joseph Fielding Smith (Church Historian and Recorder for a significant portion of the twentieth century) removed the history from the letterbook in order to suppress the history. And it’s at this point where I get annoyed.

I want to be very clear (and this will be the true test of Twitter dialogue): my annoyance is not about the claim that JFS removed the history–it’s quite likely he or one or two other HO administrators did.

Nor am I annoyed that folks want to explore the idea that the Historian’s Office limited access to its records–it’s very, very obvious that they did that as well.

No, my annoyance stems from the superficial dialogue surrounding this particular record and the richer conversation we *could* be having about the LDS archival record.

I’m deeply jealous of those who claim–without any qualifications or hedging–that the 1832 history represents Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the Mormon past. That level of certitude about the goings-on of the Historian’s Office in the twentieth century is deeply naive.

Archives are places of hourly decisions. What comes in, what leaves? Is there room for this year’s estimated intake? Which personnel should we shuffle around to take care of our backlog? (not to even mention the questions like “whose story are we actually preserving?”)

If you’re lucky, those decisions have left some sort of paper trail. But usually, they do not. You have to put the very limited puzzle pieces together.

So a bit of a detour: Did you know that the HO underwent a DRASTIC change of record storage in the 20th c? In the 19th c. a significant number of records were arranged/stored roughly chronological. This assisted in the writing of the history or compiling the Journal History.

By the 20th century, that arrangement didn’t work anymore, so there was a huge undertaking to completely reorganize *the entire collection*. Imagine taking every record in your house and putting them in a whole new order–and multiply that by 1,000+.

What was this new arrangement? We affectionally call it the “name and subject era.” Every document was generally placed into a collection either based upon who it was written to or from (depending on the prominence of the author or recipient) or the topic of the record.

This effort would not be based upon archival best practices today. It has no regard whatsoever to the original order of records. It’s probably one of the biggest mistakes in Mormon history that no one has ever heard about.

Now, to the point of my aside. This monumental shift of rearrangement in the Historians Office that influence millions of records and influenced the way an entire generation of Mormon historians viewed the past. Do you know when that first occurred?

… No really, I’m asking you. It’s not a rhetorical question. **We don’t know** when they first began that effort. We do not have the documentation of the move from chronological arrangement to the name and subject arrangement.

So back to the 1832 history. When I hear someone say, “The 1832 history was removed by Joseph Fielding Smith from the letterbook because the history contained an account of the First Vision that Church leadership didn’t like and wanted to suppress.” I want to cry.

Not because that’s not a potentially true statement, but because we just don’t know for sure. I would LOVE to have the certainty that I hear in most of these statements. [This is important because so many critics (and LDS apologists) write in such absolute terms.]

Once again to be clear. I’m not saying that the Historian’s Office didn’t limit access to its records. That was a very typical practice. But what that limitation looked like was different than the anecdote of the 1832 history illustrates.

Historian’s Office staff offered access to some records for much of its history. When we simply say “The Historian’s Office hid its past” I balk at such simplistic statements.

Let’s try to recreate the possible motives of JFS. If you have a letterbook from the 1830s in your possession and you usually limit access to such records, why would you cut from that book 6 leaves that you also won’t let anyone see?

In other words, wouldn’t it be true to assume that the way you would restrict access to the 1832 history is to simply restrict access to the letterbook?

Could I offer another possibility of the removal of the 1832 history? (And note that word. This is only a possibility since I, nor anyone that I’ve seen, has actual documentation for the event.)

Joseph Fielding Smith was very aware of the shift of processing records within the Historian’s Office–he was in charge of the HO after all. He’s interested in sorting records into their various groupings, either by name or subject.

When he sees the letterbook, he sees 2 different records–ecclesiastical correspondence and autobiography. Perhaps he thinks that he should separate the record book into 2 different physical artifacts to mirror the processes taking place within the HO every day.

Honestly, as I type out the words, my possibility doesn’t seem very strong. There are lots of other records (of less significance) that were saved from such physical division. But it’s always struck me that the “suppressing” theory didn’t make much sense either.

But ultimately this thread started out with my own personal annoyance and it will have to remain that way.

The removal of the 1832 history from the letterbook is a question that’s not going to be solved without additional evidence (and I’m not really optimistic that that documentation has survived).

But the next time you hear that the 1832 history was removed because Joseph Fielding Smith suppressed the past, ask yourself whether this fact complicates the narrative of the Historian’s Office or simplifies it.

Chase Nye

@chasenye

Feb 13

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
My HS hockey coach worked at the HO. He says he wrote the program that cataloged the records by name and subject using oracle in 1986. He says it was a response to the Hoffman. Does that line up? Obvs JFS would have been earlier.


Robin Jensen

@rsjensen12345

Feb 13

That must have been the first computerized catalog. The old HMMS software, I believe. This was right at the transition between the name and subject filing system and the more recent approach to catalog/store them based upon original order.

Erik Williams

@Sleepygas

Feb 14

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
There are a couple good RFM podcasts on this (83 & 85). In a nutshell, the church hid the history. The Mormon church then combined elements of all the different versions to get the currently accepted one. #RFM #Mormon #LDS

Robin Jensen

@rsjensen12345

Feb 14

I believe I’ve listened to both of those. What I’m trying to do with this thread is to get us past the “nutshell” and expand upon the very complex past. But I also realize that Twitter doesn’t let us do that very well.

Jake

@jakewar

Feb 13

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
TL:…but I DID read it! Appreciate your perspective. I agree on a number of points. I believe that an open mind on the possibilities of alternate theories is a healthy way to approach unknowns. In the most simplistic way, I wasn’t there so I can’t make anything but assumptions…

Brenden W. Rensink 🏔🏃📚

@BrendenWRensink

Feb 14

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
One of the biggest realizations I took from my time at the JSP was that the more I researched and learned and deepened my expertise, the more comfortable I had to become with saying, “We don’t know for sure…but here are a few possible explanations.” Lots of highly-informed🤷‍♂️

Reed J. Page (He/Him/whomst) 🇺🇦

@rejpag

Feb 13

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
Really excellent and enlightening thread. Accepting nuance, however uncomfortable, is superior to demanding certainty in the honest quest for truth.

christopher

@beforethecrows

Feb 14

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
Nice thread. I think all of this is to say that, either way, history is our making. We don’t know and can’t possibly know, but history is whatever we say it is, and when written is whatever we state it is. Nothing more. Nothing less.

BeGood

@BeGood101H

Feb 14

Replying to

@rsjensen12345
Myself dealt ancient Chinese historical doc. The ancient professional historians shared the similar problem. at first, they corrected and discarded original doc because they thought they knew better, later on they learned to use original doc. its not intentionally cheat/hide








Source: Letter VII

Uncategorized

Temple in Rio

In May Elder Stevenson will dedicate the temple in Rio de Janiero.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/3/21/22989289/rio-de-janeiro-temple-joins-christ-the-redeemer-statue-as-second-witness-of-gods-love-elder-soares

When we were in Rio a few years ago, we were surprised that there was no temple there. It’s a fabulous, and enormous, city. It’s wonderful to see the temple there, with the dedication coming after two years of delay due to covid.

While we were in Brazil on that trip, we visited the temple in Manaus. It’s located on the Amazon river, which is pretty cool. 

Some time ago I spent some time in Iquitos, Peru, on a filming project. Iquitos is also on the Amazon. There are many LDS there, so someday they’ll probably get a temple, too.  

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

The M2C citation cartel interview

Readers here are familiar with the terms M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) and citation cartel (the scholars who promote M2C at Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, FAIRLDS, etc.).

I did an interview with Gospel Tangents to discuss all of this which you can see on youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hqhjyx0eBY

These interviews are live and unscripted, so if you have any questions or problems with what I’ve said, email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and I’ll clarify.

Here are some popular M2C memes:

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Cumorah and languages

In the previous post, we observed that one reason why critics and LDS apologists alike have rejected the New York Cumorah is the absence of evidence of ancient written languages in western New York (or anywhere in the “Heartland” area of North America (east of the Mississippi).

This is a straw man logical fallacy. 

If we accept the Book of Mormon narrative, we should not expect to find evidence of such a written language. From the beginning (Enos 1:14) to the end (Mormon 6:6), the Lamanites were determined to destroy the records of the Nephites. Mormon had to move all the records from the hill Shim to the hill Cumorah precisely because the Lamanites would have destroyed them. The Lamanites did prevail, but they never found the records. As we know from Brigham Young, David Whitmer, Heber C. Kimball and others, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery saw and described the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Readers here know that I think Joseph and Oliver, along with Joseph’s brothers, moved those records, probably back to the hill Shim. Unless and until those records are located, we shouldn’t expect to find evidence of ancient written languages in eastern North America, at least not any Nephite written language.

This also explains why it makes no sense to find a solution in the Mayan glyphs, which are unrelated to Hebrew/Egyptian in any case. If the Nephites were Mayans, or lived among the Mayans, the Lamanites did a poor job of destroying their records because the Spanish found an abundance of records when they arrived. 

In Central America, it was the Spanish, not the Lamanites, who destroyed records.

_____

A related prong of the language-based anti-New York Cumorah argument goes against the Book of Mormon as a whole. This is the argument that Native American languages in North America were too numerous and distinct to have all originated with a group of Hebrews who arrived in America around 580 BC.

That’s another straw man fallacy. The Book of Mormon never claims the people spoke only one language, or that the language they spoke was Hebrew (or Egyptian). The text refers to these languages in connection with writing, not speaking.

There’s a good example in the Old Testament of people speaking different languages even though the text says they “spoke” to one another. In Gen 42:7, Joseph meets his brothers for the first time. “And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.“

The text doesn’t explain how Joseph “made himself strange” but presumably he had some sort of disguise so his brothers did not recognize him. A few verses later, we learn he spoke in a different language as well. 

Gen. 42:23 “And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.”

This precedent tells us that when scriptures refer to people speaking with one another, we cannot simply assume they spoke the same language. 

Here are some indications of the multiplicity of languages inferred by the text of the Book of Mormon.

First, we know from the Book of Mormon itself that the descendants of the people who accompanied Jared spread throughout the land. We also know that the Book of Ether describes the destruction only of the people who lived “in this north country,” meaning around New York where Moroni lived.

We also presume that Jared, his brother, and their friends traversed Asia before crossing the Pacific to North America. (I realize others think they crossed the Atlantic, based on Native American origin legends, but those legends probably didn’t refer to the Jaredite migration for several reasons.)

If Jared, his brother, and their friends crossed Asia, it seems likely they would have picked up Asian people as well to accompany them, intermarry, etc. Thus, the descendants who did not live “in this north country” would have had Asian origins, as the DNA in the Americas demonstrates. Obviously, there could have been additional migrations from Asia as well.

We see in the text that after Mosiah met Zarahemla, Jaredite-like names appeared, suggesting persistent cultural influences from the Jaredite groups that were not destroyed “in this north country.” 

Readers here know that I also infer that when Lehi landed, although they did not encounter any “nations” (2 Nephi 1:8), they did encounter indigenous hunter/gatherer groups in what is now the southeastern US. These were the non-family members who followed Nephi (2 Ne 5:5-6), while others affiliated with Laman. These groups, like the other Native American groups, did not have written language. Nor, of course, did the people of Zarahemla, who far outnumbered Mosiah’s group of exiles. 

The Book of Mormon distinguishes between “the language of the people” (Jacob 7:4), a spoken language, and “the language of our fathers” (1 Nephi 3:19), which was a written language. King Benjamin made a big point about having his sons “taught in all the language of his fathers,” (Mosiah 1:2) so they could read the scriptures in the original language. Lehi himself had to be “taught in the language of the Egyptians” so he could read the engravings. (Mosiah 1:4) In both cases, this appears to be a special written language that only the elite learned, similar to the way people used to study Latin in the 1700s-1900s even though no one spoke it (outside of Latin classes and other academic settings). 

Zeniff emphasized that he had been “taught in all the language of the Nephites.” (Mosiah 9:1). [Note: the Original Manuscript for Mosiah is not extant, but this could have originally read “all the languages (plural) of the Nephites.” The only other place in the text that uses that phrase is Mosiah 1:2, which presumably refers to both Egyptian and Hebrew.] 

Amulon and his brethren taught the Lamanites “the language of Nephi.” (Mosiah 24), but not “all the language of the Nephites.” I infer this means they taught a spoken language. But in any case this was not described as the “language of the Egyptians” that Benjamin caused that his sons be taught.

That leads me to infer that the Nephites had a common language separate from the written scriptural language, while the Lamanites had their own language, and the people of Zarahemla had their own language. None of these languages was apparently written.

When Mosiah met Zarahemla, we have this explanation:

  • 17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.
  • 18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.
  • (Omni 1:17–18)
Notice this passage does not specify in what language the genealogy of Zarahemla was written. The passage could be interpreted to mean that whatever the “language of Mosiah” was, it was written, but that’s not the only possible interpretation, and it would conflict with Mosiah 1:2. Benjamin’s sons would naturally learn the language of Mosiah and the Nephites, but they needed special training to “be taught in all the language of his fathers.” 
Therefore, it is more likely that the genealogy of Zarahemla was written in the special sacred written language like other records.
_____
Several times the text refers to scriptures in the context of the elite who presumably could read written languages. On one occasion, in Alma 33:2 when Alma told the people they “ought to search the scriptures,” we can’t tell if he was addressing the poor, presumably illiterate people or perhaps a leader among them who “they sent forth unto him” to ask doctrinal questions.   
In Alma 14:8, they burned and destroyed the records “which contained the holy scriptures.” That context suggests these were a single set of records, or a limited number of sets (whether engraved on metal plates or written on scrolls of some sort) that would have been read by the elite who then taught them to the people.
_____
Another suggestion of a written language arises from the 17 times the text refers to a proclamation being made or sent among the people. A proclamation can be made orally or in writing. The root word, “proclaim,” means to “declare publicly.” 
To “proclaim” means to “make known by public announcement, promulgate,” especially by herald or crier, late 14c., proclamen, from Latin proclamare “cry or call out,” from pro “forth” (from PIE root *per- (1) “forward”) + clamare “to cry out” (from PIE root *kele- (2) “to shout”). 
The Old Testament uses the term “proclamation” 9 times. A passage in Ezra suggests that normally the term meant an oral declaration because on this occasion, they “put it also in writing.”
1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
(Ezra 1:1)
This is similar to the passage in Mosiah 29:4 that explains two messages King Mosiah sent throughout the land. The first does not appear to have been written, but the second was written, likely with the intention that it be read by local leaders.
 1 Now when Mosiah had done this he sent out throughout all the land, among all the people, desiring to know their will concerning who should be their king.
 2 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: We are desirous that Aaron thy son should be our king and our ruler.
3 Now Aaron had gone up to the land of Nephi, therefore the king could not confer the kingdom upon him; neither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom; neither were any of the sons of Mosiah willing to take upon them the kingdom.
 4 Therefore king Mosiah sent again among the people; yea, even a written word sent he among the people. And these were the words that were written, saying:
(Mosiah 29:1–4)
Mosiah convinced the people, but when the voted, they apparently used a voice vote:
39 Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.
(Mosiah 29:39)
_____
The Book of Mormon refers uses the term “epistle” 42 times. That term derives from the Greek word for message that can also be either verbal or in writing.
epistle (n.) partly from Old English epistol and in part directly from Old French epistle, epistre (Modern French épitre), from Latin epistola “a letter,” from Greek epistole “message, letter, command, commission,” whether verbal or in writing, from epistellein “send to, send as a message or letter,” from epi “to” (see epi-) + stellein in its secondary sense of “to dispatch, send,” from PIE *stel-yo-, suffixed form of root *stel- “to put, stand, put in order,” with derivatives referring to a standing object or place. Also acquired in Old English directly from Latin as pistol. Specific sense of “letter from an apostle forming part of canonical scripture” is c. 1200.
Unlike in the case of the proclamations, the text specifies that the epistles were written, such as the exchange of epistles between Ammoron and Moroni mentioned in Alma 54:11. “Therefore he wrote an epistle, and sent it by the servant of Ammoron.” We have epistles between Moroni and Pahoran, between Lachoneus and Giddianhi and between Mormon and the king of the Lamanites, all of whom were among the elite and thus expected to be educated in a written language. Even among the Jaredites, we have an exchange of epistles between Shiz and Coriantumr, but we already knew the elite among the Jaredites had a written record because Ether kept a written record, and Coriantumr wrote upon the stone that he left with Zarahemla.
_____
After he was struck dumb, Korihor wrote his responses to the chief judge. But we also know that Korihor was among the elite educated class. (Alma 30:51-2)
_____
To summarize this brief introduction, the text consistently mentions written language as special knowledge for the elite, with multiple common spoken languages. Assuming that Mormon deposited all the Nephite records in Cumorah, and that the Lamanites were determined to destroy any written records they found, we would expect to few if any artifacts of written language in the land of the Nephites–which is what we find in North America. 
We would also expect a legacy of a variety of languages with various influences, which is also what we find.
Most LDS scholarship has focused on Mesoamerican languages. Brian Stubbs has focused on Uto-Aztecan languages and claims to have found Egyptian and Hebrew influences. His work is easily found on the Internet and I recommend it for those interested. 
 
 

Source: Letter VII

Uncategorized

Impossible to change an academic’s mind

Many Latter-day Saints are perplexed at the way Book of Mormon Central continues to spend millions of dollars to try to persuade them that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and other issues.

The rest of the citation cartel, including the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, and other LDS intellectuals, spend less money but seek the same outcome.
Once we realize that these intellectuals are deeply invested in M2C, SITH, etc., their activities make sense. They’ve been teaching and promoting M2C and SITH to BYU students and other Latter-day Saints for many years. They’ve embedded M2C in their logo.

They can hardly change course now.
They are so deeply invested they don’t even want the Latter-day Saints to know what the prophets have taught, let alone learn about the evidence that corroborates those teachings.
_____
A citation in a recent tweet explains that “highly educated people have larger stores of information from which to selectively search for information supporting a desired belief. Thus, it is nearly impossible to change an academic’s mind about anything important, particularly in his own field of study.” 
This problem is epitomized by the “Kno-Whys” (which in many cases are “no=wise”) articles from Book of Mormon Central, particularly those that try to rationalize repudiating the teachings of the prophets.
From the tweet:

“high intelligence may worsen prospects for obtaining a true belief…a biased person uses intelligence and education as tools for rationalizing beliefs…highly educated people have larger stores of information to search to support a desired belief”




Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Cumorah: people and languages

Some say the 2 main reasons why so many LDS scholars have settled on the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs (M2C) setting for the Book of Mormon are:

1. No evidence of massive warfare in western New York.

2. No ancient written languages in western New York.

I’ve addressed these points before but I’ll review the first one here and the second one in a subsequent post.

The historical explanation for M2C, of course, is the work of RLDS scholar L.E. Hills, who published the first M2C map in 1917. [Note how the simulation gave us the name of Hills for the man who developed the theory of “two hills Cumorah.”] 

Over the objection of LDS Church leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith, LDS scholars adopted the Hills’ map, which is the intellectual ancestor to the maps still featured on the website of BYU Studies and the maps that Book of Mormon Central spends millions of dollars to promote.

M2C proponents today like to think they are original thinkers, with peer-reviewed articles and other patina of scholarly embellishment, but M2C is derivative of an ill-conceived map based on misperceptions..

Let’s look at the two purported reasons for M2C.

_____

1. No evidence of massive warfare in western New York.

LDS apologists and unbelievers alike continue to claim that the Book of Mormon describes populations in the millions with final battles involving hundreds of thousands of combatants. While it’s not surprising that LDS apologists and unbelievers agree on this (as they do on so many other points), neither the text nor the teachings of early prophets require this claim.

First, we have Ether 15.

Chapter 15

Millions of the Jaredites are slain in battle—Shiz and Coriantumr assemble all the people to mortal combat—The Spirit of the Lord ceases to strive with them—The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed—Only Coriantumr remains.

1 And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the words which Ether had spoken unto him.

2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.

(Ether 15–15:2)

The heading here is not scriptural, of course; it’s an interpretation of the text. But we can see that depite the implications of the heading, these verses do not refer to Cumorah.
First, we see that Coriantumr was reflecting on Ether’s prophecies and warnings. We go back to chapter 13 to see what Ether had said.
2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

3 And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord.

13 And I was about to write more, but I am forbidden; but great and marvelous were the prophecies of Ether; but they esteemed him as naught, and cast him out; and he hid himself in the cavity of a rock by day, and by night he went forth viewing the things which should come upon the people. 

 14 And as he dwelt in the cavity of a rock he made the remainder of this record, viewing the destructions which came upon the people, by night.

(Ether 13:2-3, 13–14)
The history of the Jaredites that Ether recorded in his book summarizes the 33+ generations of his ancestry and includes continuous warfare. 
Second, we don’t know much about Coriantumr, but we do know this:
16 And now Coriantumr, having studied, himself, in all the arts of war and all the cunning of the world, wherefore he gave battle unto them who sought to destroy him.
(Ether 13:16)
As a student of war, particularly reflecting on what Ether had taught, Coriantumr would know the history of the Jaredites and their warfare. Over 33+ generations, presumably over 2,000 years, “two millions” of deaths does not reflect a huge population. Evenly distributed, that’s only 1,000 people/year. Naturally, there would be years of no war and other years with major wars, but in any case, annual deaths in the thousands over many centuries would accumulate over the history into the millions. That doesn’t mean the population at any given time included millions of people.
The third point is that Coriantumr’s reflection on two million deaths preceded the battle at Cumorah by over four years. Coriantumr’s pondering let him to suggest a truce or settlement with Shiz, but that didn’t work out and a series of battles and retreats ensued. Then, as explained in verse 11, they spent four years gathering the people to Ramah, or Cumorah. We don’t know the number of people who assembled, but they spent a week in battle. 
If we extrapolate backward from the numbers we are given, we can see that, assuming half the people died each day, there were fewer than 10,000 involved.
Which is how Oliver Cowdery explained it in Letter VII.
Thus, the misleading heading to chapter 15 has led to a widespread false assumption that millions of people died at the hill Cumorah.
As we’ve discussed before, a battle of 10,000 people does not necessarily leave much evidence. We don’t even know for sure where the Battle of Hastings took place, even though it was well documented and occurred in 1066, because evidence is ephemeral and ambiguous.
E.g., “We knew from previous experience that searching for relics of Medieval battles is a notoriously difficult task. Looting and stripping of the dead in the aftermath of fighting was a common occurrence. Unsurprisingly, not a single artefact certainly linked to the 1066 battle has ever been found. To make matters worse the village of Battle that subsequently grew up around the abbey would have obliterated any traces of the fighting, which limited surveying opportunities to the remaining, undeveloped, open areas.” https://the-past.com/feature/the-battle-for-hastings-searching-for-the-truth-about-1066/
Regarding the Nephites, nothing in the text says or implies that millions of people were involved. Some people read Mormon 6 as involving 230,000 Nephites, but that, again, is a misunderstanding of the text in which Mormon states as clear as words can be that he and Moroni could see only their respective 10,000 (a military unit, not a specific number) from the top of Cumorah.
Which, again, Letter VII explained long ago.

Source: Letter VII