I realize the topic of Cumorah has been discussed a lot lately, so don't read this if you're tired of the Cumorah topic. I actually covered this topic in detail last August, here. I'm writing today because of a new bit of information that's always been available but I didn't really notice until now and I wanted it here on the blog as a note for future reference.
If you're new to this topic, it has to do with two of the Three Witnesses. Those who advocate a Mesoamerican geography reject Oliver Cowdery's description of Cumorah in Letter VII. They also reject David Whitmer's explanation of the first time he heard the word Cumorah (which he said was in June 1829, before he'd ever read the text, and he heard it from a heavenly messenger).
The rationale for rejecting David Whitmer's testimony is that he supposedly never talked about it until 50 years after the fact, in interviews he gave to Edward Stevenson in 1877 and to Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt in 1878.
Here's how one scholar articulated the argument (I won't mention names, but you can get it from my August post if you're interested):
There are all kinds of logical errors in that statement, but I've addressed those before. Today, I want to point out something in the Stevenson statement, taken from his contemporaneous journal.
I obtained a copy of Stevenson's journal recently and here's what his entry says:
|Page from Stevenson journal|
Edward Stevenson was a general authority (one of the seven presidents of the Seventy). He was a well-known missionary (one of the MTC buildings is named after him). There's no reason to doubt the credibility of his interview with David Whitmer.
What I find fascinating is that Zina Young asked Stevenson to ask David Whitmer about seeing one of the Nephites. That was the focus of the interview, not the Cumorah question.
Why Zina Young?
And when could she have heard it?
And from whom?
It could not have been from the interview with Joseph F. Smith, which occurred a year later.
Instead, it's highly likely she heard it from David Whitmer directly!
Zina was born in 1821. Her family lived in Watertown, New York. In 1835, when she was 14 years old, two missionaries came to town: Hyrum Smith and David Whitmer. Hyrum baptized her on August 1, 1835. The family moved to Kirtland, and eventually to Far West, and then to Nauvoo along with most of the rest of the Saints. Zina married, had two children, and then also married Joseph Smith. After his death, she married Brigham Young. (That's a topic for another day.)
David Whitmer left the Church in 1837-1838 and lived in Missouri for the rest of his life. Zina would have had no contact with him after about 1837, at the latest. If that's the case, then she could only have heard the story from him between 1835 and 1837--just a few years after 1829, when David said the event happened.
Of course, modern Mesoamerican scholars will dispute this somehow, but the argument that David's testimony is unreliable because it was 50 years late contradicts the Stevenson account.
Interestingly, Zina was also the one who inherited Joseph's seer stone after Brigham Young died.
The simplest, historically justified explanation is that David told Zina and her family the story when he contacted them as a missionary. Zina remembered it and told Stevenson to ask David about it in 1877. Stevenson recorded it and wrote about it.
It's not a 50-year-old story related from a feeble and tainted memory. It's a retelling of an account related by a missionary to his investigators just a few years after the event.
Other than to defend the Mesoamerican ideology, there's no reason to cast doubt on the testimony of the Three Witnesses.
The bottom line is this (adapted from my August post):
Think about this. To accept the Mesoaemerican setting you have to disbelieve two of the three main witnesses to the Book of Mormon: Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. The Mesoamerican advocates seek to persuade you these two men were not reliable witnesses when it comes to the issue of Cumorah being in New York.
By contrast, to accept the North American (or Heartland) setting, you fully embrace what these two men said.
*You can find this account in these references, although apparently not transcribed exactly: "Edward Stevenson Interview (1) 22-23 December 1877, Richmond, Missouri Diary of Edward Stevenson," LDS Church Archives, Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews, 1993, p. 13; also Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 2003, vol. v, p. 30.
Apparently it means nothing that the church names it the "Hill Cumorah Pageant?" I have never seen it - does anyone know if they really dramatize the battle and/or the plates being deposited in Mesoamerica? If so, I don't think I could sit thru it. :SReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
[I edited my original comment so I had to delete the old one.]ReplyDelete
I'm glad you brought this up. It deserves its own blog post. I'll do it today.
In my informal surveys, most Church members just think of the Pageant as depicting "Ancient America" without distinguishing between North, South, or Central America. In that sense, it's similar to the ubiquitous painting of Christ visiting the Americas, with both Chichen Itza and Machu Picchu in the background. That painting represents Christ visiting people throughout the Americas--no problem at all. The official title of the painting is "Jesus Teaching in the Western Hemisphere (Jesus Christ Visits the Americas), by John Scott." [Interesting trivia: John Scott is not LDS and he painting himself among the crowd. He painted two originals of the painting with slight differences.]
The painting is only a problem when it is titled "Christ visiting the Nephites" instead of "Christ visiting the Americas." Apparently some people in the Church Media department don't recognize the difference. Look at this link: https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/christ-teaching-nephites-39665?lang=eng
If there's anyone from the Church media department reading this, please also correct the information at https://www.lds.org/children/resources/topics/jesus-christ-visits?lang=eng . The title of the page is fine, but the artwork in the links depicts Christ visiting Mesoamerica exclusively, contrary to the official Church policy of neutrality.