Author: Jonathan Neville

There’s an important official explanation of Mormon doctrine here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.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.”

Let’s consider how this applies to the question of Cumorah.

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

This is axiomatic, given the variety of statements Church leaders make, ranging from formal addresses in General Conference and formal published statements to off-hand comments to associates or statements in talks to specific groups.

“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.”

Notice the distinction between isolated statements by one Church leader compared with multiple statements by multiple leaders. 

“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.”

Let’s consider this in light of Letter VII’s teachings about Cumorah.
_____

In 1835, when Letter VII was published, Joseph Smith was President of the Church and Oliver Cowdery was Assistant President. 

Many people today don’t know what the Assistant President was because it was discontinued after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, so let’s look at what it entailed.

Joseph ordained Oliver as Assistant President in December, 1834. Notes from the meeting explain:

“The office of Assistant President is to assist in presiding over the whole Church, and to officiate in the absence of the President, according to his rank and appointment, viz: President Cowdery, first; President Rigdon Second, and President Williams Third, as they were severally called. The office of this priesthood is also to act as spokesman, taking Aaron for an example. The virtue of the above priesthood is to hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven or of the Church militant.”

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/account-of-meetings-revelation-and-blessing-5-6-december-1834/1

[Note: some intellectuals claim we shouldn’t believe Letter VII because Oliver wrote it instead of Joseph, but the nature of his calling as Assistant President was to “act as spokesman.” Oliver explained that Joseph helped write the letters, but he had the responsibility of writing, editing and publishing them. Think of that. Our M2C intellectuals are sowing distrust of Oliver Cowdery because he was fulfilling his responsibility as Assistant President of the Church.]

In February 1835, pursuant to D&C 18, the Three Witnesses (including Oliver Cowdery) called the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-and-doctrinal-restoration/23-calling-twelve-apostles-and-seventy-1835

For the next few months, Oliver continued to publish the historical letters he wrote with Joseph Smith, including Letter VII, which was published in July 1835. That fall, Joseph’s scribes copied the letters into his own history, which you can read here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/83

Later, on April 3, 1836, Joseph and Oliver, together, as President and Assistant President of the Church, received the keys of the gathering of Israel and the keys of this dispensation from Moses, Elijah, Elias, and the Lord Himself. (D&C 110)

In January, 1841, Joseph ordained Hyrum Smith to the same position, pursuant to D&C 124:94-5, which gives an additional explanation of the role Oliver fulfilled as Assistant President:

“And from this time forth I appoint unto him [Hyrum] that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph; That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery.”

Here is another explanation of the office: “As holder of the keys of the priesthood, the Assistant President of the Church was intended to be the person who would succeed to the presidency of the church upon the death of Smith.[Bruce R. McConkie (1966), Mormon Doctrine (2d ed., 1966, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft) p. 56.] The Assistant President ranked higher than the counselors in the First Presidency and the President and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.[Bruce R. McConkie (1966), Mormon Doctrine (2d ed., 1966, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft) p. 56.] Like the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve, the Assistant President was accepted by the church as a prophet, seer, and revelator.”

When LDS intellectuals tell you to disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver wrote in Letter VII about Cumorah, they are telling you to disbelieve the ordained President and Assistant President of the Church.

But that’s not all.

Look again at what the Church’s explanation says:

“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.”

Not only did Joseph and Oliver counsel together when they wrote these historical letters, but Joseph saw that the letters were “consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.” The letters were first published in the Messenger and Advocate. Then Joseph gave them to Don Carlos to publish in the Times and Seasons. He gave express permission (along with Sidney Rigdon) to Benjamin Winchester to publish them in the Gospel Reflector. The Pratt brothers published excerpts of them in the Millennial Star and other pamphlets. Joseph’s brother William published them in the Prophet (an 1844 Church newspaper in New York City). The letters were published again in the Improvement Era after the Saints moved to Utah.

Letter VII originated with the First Presidency and was consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. Remember this when LDS intellectuals try to persuade you to disbelieve Letter VII.

Now, the conclusion of the explanation of Church doctrine.

“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.”

The Pearl of Great Price contains an excerpt from Letter I.

Letter VII itself is not included in the standard works, but it was written by the First Presidency in 1835 to explain an important point about the Book of Mormon; i.e., the specific location of the Hill Cumorah. Joseph and Oliver were responding to anti-Mormon claims that the Book of Mormon was fiction. They wrote from their personal experience and knowledge. The statements in Letter VII were republished so often and they are so specific and detailed that their original meaning cannot be distorted, although LDS intellectuals try to do so by claiming Joseph and Oliver were merely ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the location of Cumorah.

_____

Letter VII does not exist in a vacuum. Every Church leader (First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) who has ever officially addressed the question of Cumorah has reaffirmed the New York site as the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. No member of those quorums has questioned, let alone repudiated the teachings of his predecessors.

Early Church leaders heard Oliver Cowdery describe entering the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York on multiple occasions. Lucy Mack Smith heard Joseph refer to the hill as Cumorah before he even obtained the plates; he could only have learned the name from Moroni. Parley P. Pratt emphasized that it was Moroni who referred to the New York hill as Cumorah anciently. David Whitmer heard a divine messenger claim he was going to Cumorah. These eye-witness accounts corroborate Oliver’s statement that it is a fact that the hill in New York is the very Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

Of course, these are raw facts projected on the screen. Your interpretation of them is your movie, and you can see whatever movie you want.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the day when Joseph obtained the Harmony plates from Moroni for the second time. This was after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages.

Exactly one year previously, Joseph opened the stone box on the Hill Cumorah in western New York and retrieved the abridged plates, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim. This was in a department of the hill separate from the depository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6).

Joseph took the plates to Harmony, Pennsylvania, to translate them. He translated all of them, except a sealed portion, when he was in Harmony. Then, as indicated by D&C 10, he went to Fayette and translated the second set of plates; i.e., the plates of Nephi that the messenger brought to him from the hill Cumorah.

Maybe by the 200th anniversary, in 2027, everyone in the Church will accept what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah in Letter VII.

Actually, I hope that day arrives sooner. Maybe in 2023, the 200th anniversary of the date when Joseph first saw the plates?

Or 2020, the 200th anniversary of the First Vision?

Think of what a difference it would make in the Church and in the world if all of our LDS scholars and educators decided, finally, to embrace what Joseph and Oliver and all of their successors taught?

I realize the topic of Cumorah has been discussed a lot lately, but there are still people who claim the founding prophets and their successors were wrong when they taught that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York. 

I’ve covered this topic in detail here.

This post covers a new bit of information that’s always been available but a lot of people don’t know much about it.

If you’re new to this topic, it has to do with two of the Three Witnesses. Those who advocate the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs geography (M2C) reject Oliver Cowdery’s description of Cumorah in Letter VII. They also reject David Whitmer’s explanation of the first time he heard the word Cumorah (which he said was in June 1829, before he’d ever read the text, and he heard it from a heavenly messenger).

The rationale for rejecting David Whitmer’s testimony is that he supposedly never talked about it until 50 years after the fact, in interviews he gave to Edward Stevenson in 1877 and to Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt in 1878.

Here’s how one scholar articulated the argument:

Edward Stevenson

“The earliest possible connection between the New York hill and the Book of Mormon Cumorah comes from an 1878 interview with David Whitmer by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith,… This report [the Whitmer interview] would be much more conclusive had it not been recorded nearly fifty years later. The passage of time and the accepted designation of “Cumorah” as the name of the New York hill by the time of the recollection argue against the second-hand report from Whitmer as being a definitive statement.”

There are all kinds of logical errors in that statement, but I’ve addressed those before. Today, I want to point out something in the Stevenson statement, taken from his contemporaneous journal.

I obtained a copy of Stevenson’s journal recently and here’s what his entry says:

Page from Stevenson journal

“I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates.”*

________________________________

Edward Stevenson was a general authority (one of the seven presidents of the Seventy). He was a well-known missionary (one of the MTC buildings is named after him). There’s no reason to doubt the credibility of his interview with David Whitmer.

What I find fascinating is that Zina Young asked Stevenson to ask David Whitmer about seeing one of the Nephites. That was the focus of the interview, not the Cumorah question.

Zina Young

This means that Zina had heard this story earlier. 

Why Zina Young? 

And when could she have heard it? 

And from whom?

It could not have been from the interview with Joseph F. Smith, which occurred a year later.

Instead, the evidence indicates she heard it from David Whitmer directly!

Zina was born in 1821. Her family lived in Watertown, New York. In 1835, when she was 14 years old, two missionaries came to town: Hyrum Smith and David Whitmer. Hyrum baptized her on August 1, 1835. The family moved to Kirtland, and eventually to Far West, and then to Nauvoo along with most of the rest of the Saints. Zina married, had two children, and then also married Joseph Smith. After his death, she married Brigham Young. (That’s a topic for another day.)

David Whitmer left the Church in 1837-1838 and lived in Missouri for the rest of his life. Zina would have had no contact with him after about 1837, at the latest. If that’s the case, then she could only have heard the story from him between 1835 and 1837–just a few years after 1829, when David said the event happened.

Of course, modern Mesoamerican scholars will dispute this somehow, but the argument that David’s testimony is unreliable because it was 50 years late contradicts the Stevenson account.

Interestingly, Zina was also the one who inherited Joseph’s seer stone after Brigham Young died.

The simplest, historically justified explanation is that David told Zina and her family the story when he contacted them as a missionary. Zina remembered it and told Stevenson to ask David about it in 1877. Stevenson recorded it and wrote about it. 

David Whitmer

Then Joseph F. Smith asked David about it, and he reiterated his account of the event.

It’s not a 50-year-old story related from a feeble and tainted memory. It’s a retelling of an account related by a missionary to his investigators just a few years after the event.

Other than to defend the M2C ideology, there’s no reason to cast doubt on the testimony of the Three Witnesses.
________________

The bottom line is this: 

To accept M2C, you have to disbelieve two of the three main witnesses to the Book of Mormon: Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. The M2C advocates seek to persuade you these two men were not reliable witnesses when it comes to the issue of Cumorah being in New York.

By contrast, to accept the North American setting (Moroni’s America or the Heartland), you fully embrace what these two men said.
________________

References: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/BYUIBooks/id/3527

*You can find this account in these references, although apparently not transcribed exactly: “Edward Stevenson Interview (1) 22-23 December 1877, Richmond, Missouri Diary of Edward Stevenson,” LDS Church Archives, Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews, 1993, p. 13; also Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 2003, vol. v, p. 30.

_____

More on David Whitmer, Zina Young, and Cumorah