Make Cumorah Great Again – November 2016

People are fed up with elitists telling us what to think and do.

Brexit.

Trump.

Next stop: LDS scholars who reject our prophets and apostles on the location of Cumorah.
______________

I’m kidding, a little. But there is an important point here.

I do think it’s time to Make Cumorah Great Again.

For too long, LDS scholars and educators have managed to cast doubt on our prophets and apostles, beginning with Joseph and Oliver, over this simple issue of the Hill Cumorah. Their influence, which I call Mesomania, has infiltrated Church art and media and education, to the point where, sadly, many LDS people can’t unsee Mesoamerica when they read and think about the Book of Mormon.

I’ve tried in as many ways as I can think of to explain this issue.

I’ve traced the intellectual history, showing that it was not irrational to move Cumorah from New York to southern Mexico. Except that to do so, the scholars had to repudiate the prophets.

I’ve addressed the specific arguments made by LDS scholars and educators who established and continue to promote the two-Cumorahs theory.

I’ve shown that Joseph and Oliver were consistent and persistent on the location of Cumorah (meaning the Mormon 6:6 Cumorah), as were every one of their contemporaries.

I’ve shown that the effort of scholars to link the New York Cumorah with the hemispheric model doesn’t hold up.

I’ve shown that the scholars’ rhetorical arguments based on the text are circular arguments designed solely to justify their predetermined conclusion that the Book of Mormon took place in a limited area of Mesoamerica.

I’ve shown that the articles and books purporting to cite archaeology were flawed and misrepresented the actual archaeological evidence.

I’ve shown how Joseph Fielding Smith’s prophetic warning about the two-Cumorahs theory has been vindicated by what’s happening right now.

If I’ve missed any arguments or evidence, I’d like to know about them.
______________

I remain optimistic that at least some LDS scholars and educators will change their views about Cumorah. In the meantime, every member of the Church should realize that any theory of geography that puts Cumorah somewhere other than New York is contradicting every prophet and apostle who has spoken on this issue.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Solving Cumorah

Here’s a pop quiz you can take or try on your friends.

Is Cumorah in North America or Central America?
A large majority of the LDS people I’ve asked say Cumorah is in New York. Probably 90% of Church members would say that. Usually, they wonder why I ask about Central America.
Typically, people say something such as, “It never made sense to me that Moroni carried the plates all the way to New York from Mexico, but I never thought much about it.”

That’s a tell for cognitive dissonance. People avoid thinking about the obvious problem created by Mesomania because it makes them uncomfortable.  
Plus, they don’t realize what LDS scholars and educators are teaching about Cumorah and they’re usually surprised when I tell them. 
Most members of the Church accept the New York Cumorah, but they also think the Church has endorsed a Central American setting for most of the events of the Book of Mormon. How could they not, the way Mesomania has permeated LDS culture? But this creates the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that they mitigate by blocking the obvious questions from their minds. 
I should say, most active members just avoid thinking about it. People who do think about it do one of three things:
1. Reject the scholars and educators.
2. Reject the prophets and apostles.
3. Reject all of the above because of the confusion caused by the scholars.

It really is this basic and simple.
I wish everyone would reject the scholars and educators, but that’s difficult if you’re a student. And what you learn in Church education stays with you. If you’re a missionary, you have to show people images of Central America when you introduce them to the Book of Mormon. 
It’s unbelievable.
Unbelievable in the sense that missionaries actually have to use these images, and unbelievable in the sense that it is simply not believable to most investigators–especially those who actually read the book and don’t find anything about jungles and Mayans and pyramids.
I hope no one rejects the prophets and apostles just because the scholars do. 
And I wish no one rejected all of the above, but unfortunately that may be the most common response to the conflict. It’s what most investigators do, for sure. 
On the topic of Cumorah, I think 99% of Church members will choose to accept the prophets and apostles instead of LDS scholars once they learn there is a conflict between the two. 
Resolving the Cumorah question is really a matter of educating the Saints.
________________
Look at it this way. The New York Cumorah was declared by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and corroborated by David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith. These were the only ones involved with the Book of Mormon before it was printed who commented on Cumorah. Later, every contemporary of Joseph Smith’s who mentioned Cumorah agreed that it was in New York. Later prophets and apostles, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, and Mark E. Peterson, also said Cumorah was in New York.
On the other hand, not a single prophet or apostle has ever said Cumorah was in Mexico–or anywhere else other than New York.
Key point: the only ones who insist Cumorah is not in New York are LDS scholars and the educators who follow them.
It’s a simple choice for each member of the Church: Do you follow the prophets and apostles, or do you follow the scholars?
________________
If you want to get a sense for the difference between prophets and apostles vs. scholars, read Letter VII. Then read this blog post. Compare the two approaches.
In Letter VII*, you have the Assistant President of the Church making a matter-of-fact observation that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill Cumorah in New York. He describes Mormon standing at the top of the hill surveying the carnage, etc. Then you have Joseph Smith including it in his own history and having it reprinted so every Latter-day Saint can read it. Simple, clear, authoritative, declarative.
In the scholarly analysis, you have no mention of prophets and apostles. Instead, you have a series of strained interpretations of the text and inferences designed to fit a preconceived narrative that supports the Mesoamerican setting. You have a claim that Cumorah must be “in a location prone to seismic and volcanic activity,” even though the text never mentions volcanoes. I hope by now readers can see how the 30 criteria specified in that article are imaginary. Complex, confusing, speculative, and hypothetical.
For me, it’s an easy decision.
How about you?
____________________
* People reading this blog know about Letter VII. (If you don’t, go to this blog http://www.lettervii.com/ right now.)
 

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Mountains in the Book of Mormon

A few people still think the Book of Mormon took place in an area that featured lots of big mountains; i.e., Central America. I think this is a big mistake, based on a false tradition.

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.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Distinguishing between anti-Mormon and Mesoamerican proponents

Questions have arisen about my observation that there are two groups who seek to impeach (or cast doubt on) the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. I hope this post simplifies and clarifies the point.

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.

Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place in North American (Moroni’s America)
Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.
Premise 2:   Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible.
Conclusion:   Therefore, Cumorah is in New York.

Group A: Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica (or Baja, Panama, Peru, Chile, etc.)
Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.
Premise 2:   Cumorah is not in New York.
Conclusion:   Therefore, Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible on this point.

Group B: Point of view that the Book of Mormon took place nowhere because it is fiction
Premise 1:   If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.
Premise 2:   Cumorah is not in New York.
Conclusion:   Therefore, Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible on anything.

You can see how, once someone successfully impeaches Joseph, Oliver, etc., on the issue of Cumorah, it becomes much easier to impeach them on other issues. This is particularly true when it is LDS scholars and educators themselves who are doing the impeaching. 

Imagine an LDS student who listens to his/her teachers insist Joseph and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah but right about everything else. 
Now imagine what it’s like for an investigator to have the missionaries explain that Joseph and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah but right about everything else. It’s bad enough for missionaries to have to explain why the Book of Mormon never mentions the jungles, leopards, and pyramids depicted in the artwork inside the copy the missionaries gave them, but imagine what investigators think when they learn that the missionaries themselves don’t believe what Joseph and Oliver wrote about something as basic as Cumorah. 
I’ve had some LDS people tell me that students and investigators never ask about this because educators and missionaries don’t emphasize it (or may not even realize this is what they’re teaching when they refer to Central America or use Church-provided artwork). And I suppose that may be true. 
But it doesn’t mean it’s not a big issue.
Students and investigators know what the Internet is. They double-check what they’re told. Anti-Mormon sites love to point out the discrepancy between what Joseph and Oliver (and other modern prophets and apostles) taught about the New York Hill Cumorah on one hand, and what LDS scholars and educators and missionaries teach on the other hand. 
If you’re a student or investigator and you come across this obvious discrepancy, are you going to ask your teacher or missionaries about it? 
Probably not.
No one likes a confrontation. People like to be polite.
You’ll choose to i) accept Joseph and Oliver and reject what your teachers and missionaries are telling you, ii) accept living with the cognitive dissonance it creates, or iii) veer toward Group B.
I hope everyone chooses option i), but realistically, we know a lot of people choose option ii). Sadly, option iii) seems to be the most popular choice.
Frequent readers of this blog know that this is exactly the problem that Joseph Fielding Smith warned would arise as a result of the two-Cumorahs theory. I won’t revisit that now, but I hope LDS scholars, educators, students, missionaries and members generally will think more carefully about this serious issue. If you still believe Cumorah is not in New York, you need to come up with better reasons than anyone else has so far.
In the meantime, think of how powerful it would be if LDS scholars and educators would abandon their effort to impeach Joseph and Oliver. 
If they would simply accept the New York Cumorah, we would eliminate a major stumbling block for members and investigators. 

People could still choose to disbelieve Joseph and Oliver, but at least their disbelief wouldn’t be a logical progression from what LDS scholars and educators are teaching.
Maybe at that point we could also clean up the misleading Book of Mormon art and eliminate the confusion readers get when they compare the text to the illustrations and wonder where all the jungles, pyramids, jaguars and Mayans are. 
🙂   
As always, I welcome input and correction if I’ve misstated anyone’s positions here.
_____________
* There are some faithful LDS who believe the Book of Mormon is an inspired parable, which would make it fiction, but many of them accept Joseph as a prophet anyway. I can’t follow their reasoning so I don’t know how it would fit in this analysis, if at all.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Joseph Smith Papers – New 1842 material

Just a head’s up for those interested in Church history. The Joseph Smith Papers recently released their collection of 1842 documents, here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/documents/1842.

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.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Why Central America?

A fundamental question to ask is, why look at Central America (Mesoamerica) in the first place?

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.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Simplifying with 3 syllogisms

In my ongoing effort to simplify the discussion about Book of Mormon geography, I’ve been focusing on the Hill Cumorah, meaning the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.*

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.

Moroni’s America approach – syllogism A

Premise 1:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = New York Cumorah
Premise 2:   Joseph, Oliver, etc. = True
Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = True
_______________________________
Mesoamericanapproach – syllogism A

Premise 1:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = New York Cumorah
Premise 2:   New York Cumorah = False
Conclusion:   Joseph, Oliver, etc.  = False
_______________________________
Again, I emphasize that the syllogisms use true/false as terms of logic. They are not characterizing either approach as true or false.
The conclusion, “Joseph, Oliver, etc. = False,” relates only to their statements about the New York Cumorah. The Mesoamerican literature uses softer terms such as speculating, changing their views, relying on tradition, etc. 
______________________________
Now that this syllogism makes the two positions clear, members of the Church are able to choose which one to accept without getting lost in the fog of rhetoric from both sides.
______________________________
The obvious next step is to examine Premise 2 for both sides. 
The Moroni’s America approach assumes Joseph, Oliver, etc. were accurate (true in terms of logic) on the ground that they were accurate in everything else they wrote and said about the Book of Mormon. 
The Mesoamerican approach assumes the New York Hill Cumorah is incorrect (false in terms of logic) for two reasons. First, it is linked to the hemispheric model which both sides agree is false. Second, it is incompatible with the Mesoamerican model.
The subsequent syllogisms explain this logic.

syllogism B
Mesoamericanapproach
Premise 1:   Hemispheric model = False
Premise 2:   Hemispheric model = New York Cumorah
Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = False

syllogism B
Moroni’s America approach

Premise 1:   Hemispheric model = False
Premise 2:   Hemispheric model ≠ New York Cumorah 
Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = True

syllogism C
Mesoamericanapproach
Premise 1:   Meso model ≠ New York Cumorah
Premise 2:   Meso model = True
Conclusion:   New York Cumorah = False

syllogism C
Moroni’s America approach

Premise 1:   Meso model ≠ New York Cumorah
Premise 2:   New York Cumorah = True
Conclusion:   Meso model = False
_______________________________
Another factor in the Mesoamerican Premise 2 of syllogism A is extrinsic evidence, mainly from David A. Palmer and John Clark, that claims the archaeology does not support the New York Cumorah. I’ve addressed those before, concluding that their work is unpersuasive for several reasons. I’ll discuss those in terms of syllogisms soon.    
_______________________________
*I have to clarify that we’re talking about the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 because some scholars and educators have confused the issue by means of the two-Cumorahs theory. They have concocted the idea that there are two hills named Cumorah. They claim the one in New York, where Joseph found the plates, was mistakenly named Cumorah by Joseph’s contemporaries. Joseph supposedly adopted this false tradition. This is Moroni’s hill. They claim the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in southern Mexico. That’s Mormon’s hill. Any time you see a painting, map, or scholarly article that claims the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, you’re seeing the two-Cumorahs theory, although the scholars and educators don’t emphasize that point.
**LDS scholars and educators have claimed a consensus on this issue, but, as John Sorenson admitted in Mormon’s Codex, “[t]here remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York.” As long as any such Latter-day Saints “remain,” the issue is not resolved. Brother Sorenson finished his sentence by writing “but any such idea is manifestly absurd.” That appears to be the view of many, if not most, current LDS scholars and educators.
***I used the true/false, equals/not equals form instead of the formal modus ponens and modus tollens form of syllogism. The result and the logic are the same, but it is less wordy.
If I restated Moroni’s America syllogism A in modus ponens, it would read like this:
1. If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.
2. Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible.
3. Therefore Cumorah is in New York.
 If I restated Mesoamerican syllogism A in modus tollens, it would read like this:
1. If Joseph, Oliver, etc. are reliable and credible, then Cumorah is in New York.
2. Cumorah is not in New York.
3. Therefore Joseph, Oliver, etc. are not reliable and credible.
****Remember, this is a simplified analysis; I realize some say Joseph never wrote the word Cumorah in his own handwriting, but he wrote little and never wrote the terms BibleMoroni, or many other important terms. The historical record is clear that Oliver wrote and published Letter VII with the assistance of Joseph Smith, and that Joseph endorsed Letter VII multiple times. I don’t think it’s a credible argument to say Joseph never linked the New York hill to Cumorah.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Why not fix it? Why not now?

For the last many months, I’ve discussed issues relating to Book of Mormon geography. I think it’s apparent now, based on the facts, that the premise for the Mesoamerican theory was a mistake from the outset. Joseph Smith never once wrote about or even alluded to the Book of Mormon taking place in Central America. Some of his associates did, and so far as we know he didn’t publicly correct them (except in the Wentworth letter), but it was a mistake to attribute their words to him.*

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. 

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Removing barnacles

This blog has evolved over the past year or so. 

It began as my notes about the things I was reading in the literature published by LDS scholars and educators on the topic of Book of Mormon geography and historicity. That progressed into more detailed analysis and comment.
But now I see that it is really about removing barnacles. 

And I suggest it’s time to sail the ship of Book of Mormon geography into fresh water.
_________________
President Monson has used this metaphor in the past, so I’ll copy his comments here and then explain how that metaphor describes what I’m trying to do here.
An inspiring lesson is learned from a “Viewpoint” article which appeared some time ago in the Church News. May I quote:
“To some it may seem strange to see ships of many nations loading and unloading cargo along the docks at Portland, Ore. That city is 100 miles from the ocean. Getting there involves a difficult, often turbulent passage over the bar guarding the Columbia River and a long trip up the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.
“But ship captains like to tie up at Portland. They know that as their ships travel the seas, a curious saltwater shellfish called a barnacle fastens itself to the hull and stays there for the rest of its life, surrounding itself with a rocklike shell. As more and more [of these] barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship’s drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency.
“Periodically, the ship must go into dry dock, where with great effort the barnacles are chiseled or scraped off. It’s a difficult, expensive process that ties up the ship for days.
“But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can’t live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles die and some fall away, while those that remain are easily removed. Thus, the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed.
“Sins are like those barnacles. Hardly anyone goes through life without picking up some. They increase the drag, slow our progress, decrease our efficiency. Unrepented, building up one on another, they can eventually sink us.
“In His infinite love and mercy, our Lord has provided a harbor where, through repentance, our barnacles fall away and are forgotten. With our souls lightened and renewed, we can go efficiently about our work and His.”3
_________________
Lest anyone infer that I’m comparing theories about Book of Mormon geography to sin, I am most definitely not. Instead, I’m using the metaphor of barnacles to show how clear and simple teachings can become encrusted over the years.
In Letter VII, Joseph and Oliver were as clear, precise, and specific as they could be when they declared the Hill Cumorah in New York is the location of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites. Although it was originally published in Kirtland in 1835, Joseph saw that Letter VII was republished in Nauvoo, Philadelphia, and England so everyone would know about it.
Joseph F. Smith republished it in the Improvement Era. Joseph Fielding Smith republished part of it in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. As recently as 1975 and 1978, two Apostles reaffirmed the teaching in General Conference.
The New York setting for Cumorah is simple and clean.
But like ships at sea, the question of Cumorah has become encrusted with barnacles of confusion, doubt, and contention. RLDS scholars determined that New York was too far from the Mesoamerican sites they identified as locations of Book of Mormon events. LDS scholars, over the objection of Joseph Fielding Smith, adopted the RLDS position and added even more confusion. Barnacles grew thicker. They reached the point of claiming Joseph, Oliver, David Whitmer, Lucy Mack Smith, and others were unreliable and untrustworthy as witnesses. 
As Joseph Fielding Smith warned, these barnacles have caused members of the Church (and investigators) to become confused. Members have become disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon when LDS scholars and educators teach that Joseph and Oliver were speculating and, worse, were wrong. 
As President Monson observed, “As more and more of these barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship’s drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency… But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can’t live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles die and some fall away, while those that remain are easily removed. Thus, the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed.”
I repeat: it is time to sail the ship of Book of Mormon geography into fresh water.

Let’s let those barnacles die off and fall away.

Then the ship can return to its task, lightened and renewed by the clarity and simplicity of what Joseph and Oliver taught in the first place.

I hope that some day, LDS scholars and educators will concur. I hope some day they will help scrape off whatever barnacles remain.

But as long as they resist, ignore them. As members of the Church, we are not bound by what they say. We can each make our own decisions about Letter VII and the teachings of the prophets and apostles on the location of Cumorah.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

The clarity of Letter VII

On my Mesomania blog, I’ve been discussing the techniques used by Mesoamerican proponents to perpetuate their theories about Book of Mormon geography. So far, I’ve discussed sowing confusion and impeaching the witnesses.

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.

Source: Letter VII