I continue to be amazed that the setting of the Book of Mormon remains an issue of disagreement among Latter-day Saints. By now, all Latter-day Saints should have access to the same information, and we should each be able to make up our own minds. There is no reason for--and no excuse for--contention. This is a simple binary choice, and we can respect one another's choices.
But when I see podcasts such as the one we're discussing in this post, I understand why confusion continues to permeate LDS culture.
The Informed Saints and other similar podcasters seem determined to prevent their viewers from learning the relevant facts.
By now, I can't imagine why anyone would continue watching this ongoing stream of misinformation and logical fallacies. But let's take a closer look.
_____
In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, with the objective of "no more contention," we all assume the "Informed Saints" podcasters are acting in good faith. People can believe whatever they want. We have no problem with them believing and advocating their M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs) theories. We are all sincerely interested in understanding their views.
But on the clarity element, we have to point out that the "Informed Saints" podcast featured another episode on Cumorah in which they try to persuade the Latter-day Saints that Oliver Cowdery was a liar, and they resort to a series of logical and factual fallacies to do so.
In this respect, it is difficult to understand why they keep doing the same old thing, and why they reject transparency, openness, and helping people make informed decisions.
The TLDR version of their argument:
1. Oliver Cowdery was a liar and all the historical sources, which uniformly and unambiguously corroborate the New York Cumorah/Ramah, are equally false, solely because our interpretation of the text doesn't fit a New York Cumorah/Ramah.
2. Plus, Oliver's lie misled Joseph Smith and every other LDS Church leader who has ever addressed the topic, so that they all, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, perpetuated Oliver's lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yijdqKn-GQ
At the end of this analysis of the transcript, you will see this conclusion:
The big questions remaining are
(i) why don't the Informed Saints tell their readers what the prophets have actually taught about the New York Cumorah instead of misrepresenting those teachings, and
(ii) why don't they invite a Heartlander on the show to present the other side, or at least honestly report the other sides' positions.
Here is an annotated version of their transcript.
Transcript of “Were Bushels of Arrowheads Found at Hill Cumorah? (Archaeology vs. Myth)”
Channel: Informed Saints
Hosts: Jasmin Rappleye, Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smoot
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yijdqKn-GQ
[Opening]
So, is the Hill Cumorah in New York or somewhere else entirely? This is maybe one of the most contentious points when it comes to Book of Mormon geography or even Church history, just because people assume that like, “Oh, the Hill Cumorah is in New York.
Notice they start with "assume" instead of talking about facts. That's a "tell" for how they will not follow the FAITH model of analysis (separating Facts from Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and Hypotheses).
Joseph Smith called it the Hill Cumorah. That’s like our pin in the map. So everything about the Book of Mormon, we can like build around that.”
Welcome to Informed Saints. I’m Jasmin. We’ve got Stephen and Neal. And today we’re talking about where is the Hill Cumorah? So, Stephen, where is it?
Next, they try some humor.
Stephen: Well, you’d be surprised to learn that it’s actually on Mars. It’s neither New York nor in Central America.
Jasmin: Moon people.
Stephen: Yes. Exactly.
Neal: New Book of Mormon geography theory drops today.
Stephen: The three Cumorah theory, right? Yeah. We’re going to talk all about the Hill Cumorah today. And there is a lot to talk about. So we won’t be able to cover necessarily every little thing, right? I have confidence. I believe in our viewers that the comments are going to be measured and calm and thoughtful. Please no flames in the comments, everybody. We’re trying to do our best here. But let’s talk about…
Jasmin: But it is contentious. People have very strong opinions about this.
Now they frame this conversation as "opinion."
There is no need for contention. Church leaders today are wise to ask that members not contend about Book of Mormon geography because so many people get emotionally involved with the topic and lose perspective.
But it is not fair or even reasonable to frame this as merely a matter of opinion. This is a simple binary question: Do we (i) believe or (ii) reject what the prophets have said about Cumorah?
As we'll see, in this podcast the Informed Saints, like all M2Cers and B2Cers, avoid telling their audiences about the actual historical record. They simply refuse to quote or even cite the record. Instead they paraphrase and omit the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah because they are trying to persuade Latter-day Saints to believe Oliver Cowdery lied when he said it was a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York.
In the spirit of understanding, we can all understand why they take this approach. They know that most Latter-day Saints who know the entire historical record are more likely to accept, than to reject, the teachings of the prophets on this topic.
And they know the historical record is unequivocal and clear.
This video is a good overview of the position of those who reject what the prophets have taught.
Stephen: They do indeed. And there’s a lot to talk about. So let’s just kind of jump right into it, right? Shall we?
Where do we even get the idea that the Hill Cumorah is in New York?
Stephen: Well, we get that idea from Mormon chapter 6 in the Book of Mormon. That’s probably the best place to go, which is where we learn about the Hill Cumorah for the first time. That is the first place where a place called Cumorah is mentioned. Mormon says that we gathered our people together unto the land of Cumorah by a hill which was called Cumorah and there we could give them battle—referring to the Lamanites, right? So this is it, baby. The final countdown. This is the big shebang. Mormon writes to the Lamanite king saying, “All right, let’s have a big battle here at this hill.” That’s what they do. And the Nephites are obliterated right to near extinction at the Hill Cumorah.
We get some further details from Mormon. He says, for example, they pitched their tents round about the hill Cumorah. It was a land of many waters, rivers and fountains. And here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites. So it clearly has some kind of strategic value to the Nephites. That’s why Mormon picks this location.
They podcasters insert the term "strategic" here.
One reason why the Nephites might have thought they had an advantage over the Lamanites is Cumorah was the site of the Jaredite Ramah, where, they presumably had a fortress of some type. Mormon says he abridged the Nephite records at Cumorah, which he would not have done in the open. So there must have been some underground repository the text doesn't specifically describe.
But Oliver Cowdery did describe it.
And he gives us detail that it’s a land of many waters, things like that. He says that they are both around the hill and also they’re fighting on the hill, right? So there’s the hill and the land around the hill.
There’s an added detail in Ether 15:11 that says that the same place where the Nephites perish at Cumorah is called the hill Ramah by the Jaredites, where the Jaredites perished. And so using our critical thinking skills, Neal and Jasmin, that tells us that the land of Cumorah is located where in relative Book of Mormon geography?
Neal/Jasmin: In the land northward.
Stephen: The land northward in Jaredite territory. Okay. So wherever your Hill Cumorah is in your geography theory, it has to be the same place where the Jaredites are.
This is a good point. Moroni lived in this same area: 1 And now I, Moroni, proceed to give an account of those ancient inhabitants who were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country. (Ether 1:1)
Neal: Yeah. And that is an important distinction, the wording there. It’s not enough to say put on a map, “My east sea is here and it’s by Cumorah.” It’s got to be geographically eastward of Cumorah. You’ve got to have a seashore eastward from your Cumorah candidate. A sizable body of water, one that you would call a sea.
The vague information in the text offers a range of possibilities. To clarify, the text says "eastward," not "east." It does not identify the sea by name. It says "by the place where the Nephites were destroyed" but does not specify Cumorah and does not say "were finally destroyed." The Nephites were destroyed in many areas as we read in Mormon chapters 2-6. And they went "by the place," not through the place.
Stephen: The other final thing we get this detail from about the hill specifically. So the hill in the Book of Mormon is where the Nephites perish. It’s where the Jaredites perish. It’s also where Mormon buries his library essentially. … It says in Mormon 6:6: “When we had gathered all our people into the land of Cumorah, behold, I Mormon began to be old, and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, for the Lamanites would destroy them. Therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi … and hid up in the hill all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.”
So to reiterate: Hill Cumorah is in a land of many waters.
Check.
It’s in a land northward.
Check. As Moroni says, he was writing "in this north country."
You go eastward and you run into a big body of water.
But not necessarily eastward of Cumorah per se, as we saw above.
It has to have some kind of a strategic advantage in a war in a big battle. That’s why Mormon picks it.
Check, although "strategic" is interpretive spin.
You have to be able to camp around it.
Check.
That also, I think, presumably means make redoubts or battlements or whatever—something to defend yourself with.
Presumably.
And it has to be a place where Mormon buries his records. That is what we get from the Book of Mormon text on the Hill Cumorah.
The text does not say Mormon "buried" his record. Mormon says he "hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records... save these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni." The text does not give us a more detailed description of how he "hid up" the records, but it implies there was a repository in the hill Cumorah.
Orson Pratt explained that there were two "departments" in Cumorah. One was the stone box Moroni constructed for the abridged plates that Joseph obtained there. The other department was this repository of Nephite records that Mormon mentioned in Mormon 6:6.
And we have a good description of the repository from Oliver Cowdery based on his visits there.
Joseph Smith found the plates in New York
Stephen: He found the plates in New York. Indeed. And I think we should clarify here. We’re talking about two separate things because sometimes people get this mixed up in their wires crossed. There’s the location where Joseph Smith finds the plates. Nobody disputes that. Every proponent of the Mesoamerica model, South America model—everybody agrees that’s where Joseph found these plates that he translated: a hill in New York. And I think we can add that that alone is enough if you feel like that alone is enough to make the hill valuable and important and sacred in our tradition. We still love the Hill Cumorah in New York. We don’t need everything else. That is still a sacred site because that’s where the plates were found. And when I go there, I’ve been there many times. I like to go on the top and I like to sing “An Angel from on High.” The long, long silence broke. It’s great, right? That’s not what we’re disputing.
Every faithful LDS agrees on this.
What is being disputed is: the hill in New York, that drumlin hill in Manchester—is that the same place being narrated here in Mormon chapter 6? Is that where the final battle took place? Exactly. So let’s not get our wires crossed. … We’re not saying Joseph Smith trekked down to Mexico or something to find the plates.
Good, but this is a red herring anyway. Nobody says Joseph went to Mexico to get the plates.
Where do we get the name for the hill in New York being called Cumorah?
We do not have any accounts in the 1820s or the early 1830s, the time the Book of Mormon comes forth, of anybody calling it Cumorah.
This "lateness filter" is the first logical fallacy they use.
All of the accounts of the First Vision, Moroni's original and subsequent visits, and the recovery of the plates are retrospective. We don't have any contemporaneous accounts of these things. Every account we have is related from memory. (For that matter, the four gospels are also retrospective, but the M2Cers don't use that argument to reject those gospels.)
The "lateness filter" is an argument against the credibility of the people who recorded the accounts retrospectively. This "lateness filter" is the same filter that critics use to dismiss the First Vision and Moroni's visit, but at least the critics are consistent in applying the filter.
The M2Cers apply the lateness filter selectively to exclude accounts about Cumorah that they reject because the excluded accounts contradict their own interpretation of the text.
Joseph Smith never says, “I got the plates out of the Hill Cumorah” in the 1820s and 30s—not in that specific language, not in a firsthand source. In his own writings/histories he calls it “the hill,” “a hill of considerable size,” or “a hill near Manchester, Ontario County, New York.”
Because the Informed Saints are loose with their quotations and don't provide citations, we have to guess at what they are talking about here.
In Joseph's own writings, such as his unpublished 1832 history, he doesn't mention the hill at all. He just said (this part was written by Frederick G. Williams) that an unnamed "angel of the Lord" told him that "there was plates of gold" in "the Town of Manchester Ontario County NY." and that he "went to the place and found where the plates was deposited."
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/4
If they applied their "lateness filter" consistently, the Informed Saints' should argue that the whole "hill" narrative was invented later by Phelps, because he wrote about the Hill Cumorah before Joseph ever said anything about a hill.
Next, the Informed Saints apparently cite JS-H 1:51, which refers to "a hill of considerable size" but Joseph did not write that history. It was compiled by his scribes and first published in the Times and Seasons in 1842, a year after the same newspaper published Oliver's declaration that it was a fact that the hill Cumorah in New York where Joseph obtained the plates is the same one where the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place. Joseph's contemporaries knew the name of the hill was Cumorah.
And the angel Moroni—does he ever say “Here are the plates; this is the Hill Cumorah”? No contemporary sources. Joseph Smith never attributes that to Moroni.
This is both the "lateness filter" problem and misdirection. To repeat, there are zero contemporaneous sources about Moroni's visit, obtaining the plates, etc. Knowing this, they instead use the term "contemporary sources," to expand the allowable time for an account. But even this is a subjective time limit that they don't apply to other events (such as the First Vision).
Parley P. Pratt's autobiography relates that in 1830 the missionaries were teaching that Moroni himself called the hill where the plates were found "Cumorah" anciently.
Then there is Lucy Mack Smith's account of Moroni's visit, which she could have learned only from Joseph.
The misdirection comes from the fact that Joseph did explicitly attribute the hill Cumorah to Moroni in D&C 128:20.
Eventually the locals are calling it either Gold Bible Hill or Mormon Hill. … That has to be after 1829 or so. … That persists for a long time … into the 1920s. …
This makes sense because if the "locals" called it Cumorah, they would be adopting the LDS view that the Book of Mormon was an authentic historical account.
We get the terminology Cumorah … our earliest Latter-day Saint source that we have record of is 1833—William W. Phelps in the Evening and the Morning Star, January 1833. He says “from the hill Cumorah which is in the county of Ontario in the state of New York.” So that’s in the Church’s newspaper. He calls it the Hill Cumorah and he’s referring to the hill in the Book of Mormon. He thinks that the hill in the Book of Mormon is the hill where Joseph got the plates in New York.
They imply that it was Phelps who coined the term, just as they used to imply that it was Phelps who coined the term Urim and Thummim (until an earlier account by Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde was discovered). But this 1833 article is also the first published account by a Church member of Joseph obtaining the plates and translating them. Naturally no earlier published account would mention Cumorah because no earlier publication discussed Joseph obtaining the plates.
Several accounts include references to Cumorah, including Moroni's identification of the hill as Cumorah the first time he visited Joseph. Like every other account of that visit, these accounts are retrospective, as we'll see below.
The second person is Oliver Cowdery in 1835 in what is called Letter VII. … In Letter VII … Oliver Cowdery in July of 1835 [is] calling it the Hill Cumorah. He talks about the Nephites being encamped around this Hill Cumorah and he gives this big description of the hill and he’s clearly talking about the hill in New York. … There’s obviously no question he believes this is where the end of the Nephites and Jaredites happened.
This is misleading. Notice how they quoted the earlier sources but not Letter VII. Oliver did not say he "believed" the New York Cumorah was the site of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites. He said it was a fact.
Notice too that they refer to him as Oliver Cowdery instead of President Cowdery, the way Joseph referred to him because he was the Assistant President of the Church when he wrote Letter VII.
Oliver began his eight essays on the history of the Restoration by writing "To do justice to this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readers, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts." (Messenger and Advocate I.1:13 ¶11)
But our Informed Saints podcasters tell us instead that Oliver did not actually found his account on facts.
… It’s not like an outlandish conflation to make. … And to add another layer … there is also the common 19th-century mound-builder myth … influencing early Latter-day Saint thinking about where the hill is.
This is the old argument from critics, but Cowdery specifically distanced his account from that myth when he explained that "It was not the wicked who overcame the righteous; far from this: it was the wicked against the wicked, and by the wicked the wicked were punished." (Messenger and Advocate I.10:158 ¶7)
… Very early on this becomes what we can call the traditional identification: that the hill in New York is the same hill described in Mormon 6 where the final battle happens with the Nephites.
This ambiguous statement could be accurate if by "very early on" they mean "when Moroni first visited Joseph Smith." IOW, according to the historical record, it was Moroni himself who initiated the "traditional identification."
Assessing the sources critically
… While it is true that Joseph has some kind of assistance in crafting this history … we actually don’t know if it’s originating from Joseph Smith as opposed to Oliver and William Phelps. …
The unstated premise here is that Oliver would be less credible or authoritative than Joseph. But why would that be? There is no reason to assume or infer that Oliver had no independent knowledge; to the contrary, we have Oliver's account of having entered the repository in the hill, and his account of having visited the hill with Joseph.
We’re not saying that this 1835 history from Oliver Cowdery is not a valuable source in Church history. We’re saying … it has its problems and it needs to be used critically. … When we’re talking about Book of Mormon history and Book of Mormon geography, Oliver is not actually a contemporary. He is not an eyewitness source. …
This peculiar objection seems to imply that there is a contemporary, eyewitness source for the identification of Cumorah. The only contemporary of the final Nephite battles of which we have knowledge is the resurrected Moroni--and it was, according to Joseph and others, Moroni himself who identified the hill as Cumorah.
To be sure, Oliver was not a contemporary of the Nephites. Nor was Joseph. So in that senses they could not be eyewitnesses. But both of them visited the hill, including the repository, so in that sense they were eyewitnesses of the evidence that this hill in New York was actually Cumorah/Ramah.
Just because Oliver Cowdery identifies that hill as the Hill Cumorah and Joseph Smith had involvement in that production does not necessarily mean that Joseph Smith himself is saying that hill is Cumorah. … Even if he is, that doesn’t mean this is revealed knowledge. …
This reflects the earlier point, that there is no reason to assume or infer that Joseph would be a more credible source than Oliver.
The "revealed knowledge" argument is a red herring. Cowdery declared it was a fact, just as he declared other aspects of the Restoration were facts. If, as he said, Cowdery visited the repository in Cumorah, he had no need of "revelation" to ascertain that the hill was in fact Cumorah.
If you want to accept Oliver Cowdery’s identification of the hill in New York as the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6, that’s fine.
Agreed.
But guess what else Oliver Cowdery identifies as a Book of Mormon geography site? He identifies Lehi’s landing place as in Chile, the coast of South America. … If you want to accept Oliver on that invocation of Cumorah you kind of have to accept a hemispheric [model]. …
This is another red herring. First, Oliver never made this assertion in a formal publication. Second, he never made the claim in any other clear context. Third, the Informed Saints are relying on a hearsay article published in an Ohio newspaper that did not even quote Cowdery or directly attribute the claim to him. Among the group the newspaper referred to was Parley P. Pratt, who, with his brother Orson, promoted the hemispheric model.
What do we actually have from Joseph Smith?
… From my count, exactly one place where Joseph Smith uses the word Cumorah in some sense to maybe be talking about the hill in New York. It’s in September 7, 1842—his epistle that’s now Doctrine and Covenants 128: “Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.” That’s it. … When I read that it sounds like a reference to the hill in New York. … And he’s saying Cumorah and it is in our canon. … But it isn’t like a verbatim dictated revelation. …
This is an interesting claim that relates back to the "revealed knowledge" fallacy. Joseph related several facts about his experiences that are included in our scriptures. He also related teachings that he did not directly attribute to verbatim dictated revelation. For that matter, he made changes to his translation of the plates, which showed that he did not consider the original translation to be "verbatim dictated revelation."
It’s also just worth noting that toponyms as used in our scriptures … use contemporary nomenclature for places. By 1842 you have a common identification of that hill among the Saints as Cumorah. That’s common nomenclature. …
They don't explain why this is "worth noting." This is a way of asserting, in a fashion they think will be more palatable, of saying that Oliver Cowdery (and Phelps) misled everyone and then Joseph simply adopted that false tradition.
It certainly is possible that Joseph by revelation learns that the hill in New York is the Hill Cumorah. We have no record of that. …
Here they repeat again the "revelation" argument without explaining why direct experience at the hill Cumorah would not suffice to support a claim of fact.
Lucy Mack Smith in 1844 in her history … quotes the angel as telling Joseph Smith, “The record is on a sidehill on the hill Cumorah, three miles from this place.” … That is Lucy attributing to the angel … that it’s called the Hill Cumorah. … That’s a degree of separation. … This is what we would call a third-hand source … recorded 20 years later … after the identification becomes very common. … You have to take that with a big grain of salt. …
Naturally they have to gloss over her account. But Lucy's history is deemed so credible regarding Joseph's early years that it is cited over 100 times in the Saints book (although they avoid the Cumorah references). Lucy's account includes the specifics of Moroni telling Joseph to remove the grass and moss which is found in no other account.
Other factors support the credibility of Lucy's account. She explained that she finally dictated it because she was tired of relating it so many times. Had she been inventing a narrative, we can reasonably assume Joseph would have corrected her.
Lucy's account here is not the only one in which she referred to Cumorah. She explained that in the winter of 1827, Joseph was returning from Manchester and passed by the Hill Cumorah, where the plates were, when Moroni stopped him and chastised him. The entire family knew which hill he meant when he referred to Cumorah.
Finally, Joseph's statement in D&C 128:20 corroborates Lucy's account.
David Whitmer sources
… In 1878, David Whitmer … gives this story about traveling from Harmony, Pennsylvania. … They encounter this stranger … the stranger says, “No, I am going to Cumorah.” … David Whitmer says, “This was something new to me. I did not know what Cumorah meant.” … This is happening 50 years after the event is supposed to have transpired (1829). … We don’t get any more details about this—like where is this Cumorah that he’s going to? … Cumorah could be anywhere. …
First, David repeated this at least twice, and explained why he remembered it, which is an indicia of credibility.
Second, in 1832, David was a missionary with Hyrum Smith to the family of __. Before Edward Stevenson went east to interview David, she asked him to ask David about the messenger he met on the way to Fayette. There is no record of her having interacted with David Whitmer after 1832. That places the messenger account as early as 1832.
… It’s a little bit self-serving for our Heartlander friends to want to quote David Whitmer on this to prove Cumorah is in New York. But then they’ll say things like, “Oh, but this idea of Joseph using a seer stone in a hat, that’s dumb.” … That comes from David Whitmer. …
This deserves far more discussion, but there are several differences between these two topics. David's reference to Cumorah was simply a factual relation of his experience. He had no ulterior motive in relating the account, which he had apparently related as early as 1832.
David's statements about SITH arose for the first time around 50 years after the events. He admitted he was not present for most of the translation, and never for the translation of the abridged plates in Harmony. He was not a scribe (unlike his brother John who affirmed that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim). Over time, David's insistence on SITH became stronger and stronger. Others reported that David previously claimed Joseph used the Urim and Thummim instead but changed his story later.
Recap of historical sources
… Our earliest datable source is 1833 William Phelps … Oliver in 1835. Joseph uses it once in 1842. So it is fair to say that the traditional identification of the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is the hill in New York where Joseph got the plates. … But do we know as a matter of revealed truth from God that that identification is true? And the answer of the Church is no.
They keep invoking the revelation fallacy argument, but it remains a logical fallacy.
The Church’s position
… The Church is neutral on Book of Mormon geography. Every site. You cannot claim that God has revealed the location of any site. And I will be emphatic: this includes the Hill Cumorah. …
He is emphatic about this, but the essay does not refer to Cumorah. No Church leader has ever revoked or repudiated what President Cowdery and other Church leaders have taught about Cumorah; to the contrary they have all been consistent.
Only certain scholars have repudiated President Cowdery's statement about Cumorah. And their only justification is that the New York Cumorah contradicts their own subjective interpretation of the geography passages in the text.
Here’s what it says on its site guide for its curators: “Visitors at the Church’s historic sites sometimes ask questions or make declarations about the locations of places described in the Book of Mormon. For example, some people believe that the land around the hill we now call Cumorah was the location of the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites recorded in Mormon 6. Others believe that the battle occurred in Central or South America. As a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you should not participate in such speculation, even if you have strong personal opinions about the topic. Instead, you should refer visitors to the Church’s official statement titled ‘Book of Mormon Geography’…”
This is a site guide for missionaries and it makes perfect sense because missionaries are not there to debate these topics. Few if any of the missionaries even know about Letter VII and the other teachings of the prophets, and it is a distraction from their missionary purpose to engage this conversation.
But notice the wording. "Some people believe..." Another way to say this is, "Some people still accept what President Cowdery and other Church leaders have taught about Cumorah, while others prefer the teachings of certain scholars about Cumorah in Mexico. As missionaries, you shouldn't engage in speculation about htis topic.
… Even Cumorah—like we shouldn’t speculate on.
I agree that there is no point in speculating about Cumorah. It is simply a question about whether we accept or repudiate what the prophets have taught.
What the Book of Mormon says / challenges for the New York location
… Why can’t it be? Why is it a problem for that hill in New York to be the one in the Book of Mormon?
Wherever Hill Cumorah is has to be in a “land of many waters.” Upstate New York would qualify for that. … What about the strategic advantage the hill gives to the Nephites? … Is it tall enough, however, to accommodate potentially upwards of 230,000 people? …
Here they adopt as fact the interpretation that there were 230,000 people on the Hill Cumorah. The text never makes any such claim. Apparently they are arguing that the 23 units of 10,000 are precise enumerations, and we can leave the plausibility of that for each individual to decide.
(In my view, these are designations of military units, not enumerations, and bear little relation to the number of people in each unit. Military units of 10,000 are found historically around the world. For example, had one of Mormon's men been killed previously, it seems unlikely he would have referred to his 9,999.)
The other assumption is that each of these units of 23 were killed on, or near, Cumorah. But the text says only that, from the top of Cumorah, Mormon could see his "10,000" and Moroni's "10,000." Mormon does not say he could see the others listed. That leads me to infer that he was reflecting on his entire military career spanning decades, and that he was listing his generals who had died in the these battles as the Nephites were "swept off by" the Lamanites for many years before Cumorah.
You have two cataclysmic, apocalyptic, civilizational-ending battles at this hill. … What is the military strategic tactical advantage that comes with the drumlin hill in New York? … It’s a drumlin hill. There’s literally thousands of them across upstate New York. … Prior to [clearing], … it is densely wooded. … This is not a hill that is really going to give you … a clear view of the field. …
It is, after all, a hill. Not a mountain or mount (of which the Book of Mormon mentions others).
As Oliver pointed out, this is the largest hill in the area. From the top, you can see all the way to Rochester. Native Americans typically cleared the tallest hills to communicated over long distances.
The "advantage" (the text does not say tactical) Mormon hoped to gain could include (i) distance from the Lamanite territories (creating longer supply and reinforcement problem for the Lamanites), (ii) abundance of water which impedes armies and assures sources of water during a siege, and (iii) the Jaredite fortress.
What is your eastward sea in the Heartland model? Atlantic Ocean—that’s like 250 miles away at least. … Is it Lake Ontario? … That’s north of Palmyra/Manchester; it’s not east.
As we saw earlier, the text it not this specific. It says "eastward" of where the Nephites "were destroyed." But they were destroyed in many areas as they retreated toward Cumorah, and "eastward" is not "due east."
Besides, when the St. Lawrence is blocked by ice, the shoreline of Lake Ontario (Lake Iroquois) extended southward so it was due east of Cumorah.
… After the final battle, Mormon and Moroni … are fleeing that area … Are you really going to go back to that site to bury the plates? …
Actually, Mormon died. Moroni was left alone. He never said or implied that he traveled a great distance to "hide up the records in the earth." To the contrary, he told Joseph that the record was "written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home near Palmyra.
He’s wandering for years and years after—35 years. … What is Moroni doing for 35 years? Where is he going? … Why is it that he’s given the record at Cumorah, presumably New York, just to leave for 35 years just to come back to bury it?
This is pure speculation that contradicts the historical record.
… We do not have firsthand statements from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery saying there’s a cave in the hill with all these records. … Our earliest account is from Heber C. Kimball, 1856. Heber C. Kimball says they saw it in a vision. … Accounts after Heber C. Kimball … don’t agree. … The details don’t match up.
Brigham Young explained why Oliver did not talk about it in public. Heber never said they saw it in a vision. That is an interpretation of how Heber referred to the event. Brigham related the account shortly before he died and explained that he did so because he feared it would otherwise be lost.
Now the Informed Saints are doing everything they can to make sure the account is lost. But fortunately we have the Internet so they cannot bury it. We can all read these accounts for ourselves to see that their framing is driven by M2C, not by the historical record.
Looking at the archaeology
… There is not, at least from the current work that’s been done at the site, [evidence of a major battle]. … There has not been systematic coordinated controlled digs on the hill or the land around the hill. … John E. Clark wrote an article … “Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill.” …
Clark's article has lots of problems that I discussed years ago.
We would expect to find major defensive works, concentrated battle debris, large-scale burials associated with reported battles, population concentrations, a material culture sequence clearly corresponding to the Book of Mormon societies described in the text. We don’t find any of that in New York in or around the hill.
These are their expectations, based on their interpretation of the text, but not based on the text itself, which depicts people fleeing under duress for years before finally stopping at Cumorah. And yet Heber C. Kimball reported seeing the embankments around the hill when he visited in 1832.
… There is some story about James Talmage … saying that there was a lot of phosphorus in the soil or something … that could be from all the bones. But … that’s pretty thin gruel to hang a lot on.
I agree this can be framed as "thin gruel," yet it is thicker than any gruel the M2Cers have come up with for their Mexican Cumorah.
… An account by Susa Young Gates … [1901 visit]: “… Outside the farmhouse, Elder Taylor and myself noted several bushel baskets filled with arrowheads. … She said they had just begun to plow up the Hill Cumorah and around the hill to plant some crops and they turned up these arrowheads by the basket full. … She sold them to tourists who passed by. … This seems good evidence of the wars which had been fought around this historical hill.” George Albert Smith gives a similar account 1909 …
The existences of such arrowheads is not surprising. The University of Buffalo has over a million ancient artifacts from western New York, including many Hopewell artifacts brought from Ohio, and local farmers typically have their own collections. But as the following narrative points out, these cannot be dated and we have over a thousand years of post-Book of Mormon occupation in the area.
Friends, let’s put on our critical thinking hats here. … Provenance is sketchy. … Super sketchy. … We have no idea [exact location, date, typology, whether lost in warfare/hunting/habitation, accumulation over centuries, etc.]. … For at least a thousand years before Europeans … there are hunter-gatherer groups … using … spears and the bow and arrow all over the place. … Unless you have a typology … that would not prove that all the arrowheads in the bushel came from that same period. … You could have like a thousand years of accumulation of arrowheads … but that doesn’t mean a big battle happened in one concentrated time period.
We’re not saying that Susa Young Gates is lying. … Although to be fair, [the owners] do have … motive to tell the Mormons … “Oh yeah, this is totally from the hill where you guys think the battle happened. You should buy some.” … It is not dispositive evidence that a giant battle happened there around AD 400.
This is a straw man argument because no one is claiming the existence of these artifacts is dispositive evidence of the Cumorah battle. But it does corroborate the account of warfare in the text.
Another candidate in Mexico
… There actually is … a pretty good candidate for a Hill Cumorah down in Mexico that fits a lot of the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon. … Cerro El VigÃa … the hill of the watchmen. It’s down in Veracruz, Mexico. … It’s a really big hill. … It rises to at least like 2,800 ft above sea level with roughly a 1,700-foot prominence above the surrounding terrain. …
This "hill" is also referred to as a mountain, although the distinction between the terms is vague.
David Palmer and then later John Sorenson … identified this as a very promising candidate. It fits naturally with both the geography of the Tehuantepec … limited Tehuantepec model. … It is close by seacoast. … It is a land of many waters, many rivers. … The physical character of the hill … will give you a strategic advantage. … It is the location of an ancient population center around the hill. … It does correlate with Jaredite land-northward geography in this model. … There have been finds of different weapons and things like that in the area as well. … Same problem … we haven’t done systematic archaeological digs. … We’ve got some promising candidates to work with besides just what’s in New York.
There are "promising candidates" all around the world.
Conclusion
… If you have other candidates you like to propose, according to the Church that’s fine so long as you do not say “This is the revealed location and we know it because God said so.” … Let a thousand blossoms bloom in terms of different candidates we can argue about, different models we can argue about. That’s totally fine. …
This is all good. But what is the point of trying so hard to convince Latter-day Saints that President Cowdery was a liar and that all the other Church leaders who corroborated his statement of fact misled the Latter-day Saints?
The only reason they give here is that the New York Cumorah contradicts their own intepretation of the text.
We are not here to diminish your faith in the Book of Mormon. We are not here to take away from the sacredness of the site of the hill in New York. … I love the Hill Cumorah. … The Church’s website goes on to say they call it the Hill Cumorah because that’s the traditional name. … It’s beautiful. It is sacred. That’s where Joseph met the angel, got the plates. … But all these other kind of arguments people have about why it has to be the hill where the battle happened … I think that’s just kind of questionable. … We have a lot more work to do before we can establish where that hill actually is.
… To our Heartlander friends in the comments, please do not get mad at us. … I think these are substantive problems and issues we have to address when it comes to Book of Mormon geography.
The big questions remaining are
(i) why they don't tell their readers what the prophets have actually taught about the New York Cumorah instead of misrepresenting those teachings, and
(ii) why they don't invite a Heartlander on the show to present the other side.
… There’s a lot more moving parts going into all this. … It’s a beautiful place. It’s inspired. …
If you want to learn more, we’re going to put stuff links in the description, including this issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, which has a lot of great information on Hill Cumorah. And remember, you can study deeply, believe boldly. We’ll see you next time.
