Royal Skousen on Witnesses-Part 2

I posted the second part of my peer review of Royal Skousen's preliminary manuscript on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Here's the link:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/skousen-on-witnesses-part-2.html

In this part, I discuss Brother Skousen description of what he says are "Two different methods of translating the Book of Mormon." 

He concludes "The Book of Mormon, as we have it today (the result of losing the 116 manuscript pages), was most probably all translated by means of a seer stone that Joseph Smith had."

However, the "most probably" qualification evaporates in the narrative. Instead, he claims that "the only part that could have been translated by means of the Nephite interpreters" is the initial part of the book of Mosiah, which is not extant.

This line of reasoning leads Skousen, as I discuss in my part 3 tomorrow, to conclude that Joseph Smith's statements about the translation are "only partially true" and Oliver Cowdery's statements are "intentionally misleading."

_____

The M2C/SITH citation cartel has left Latter-day Saints susceptible to more complete information coming from critics, such as CES Letter and Mormon Stories, both of which prey on uninformed Latter-day Saints by presenting narratives about Church history and doctrine that undermine faith. It's tragic and avoidable. Fully-informed Church members can detect the fallacies in the narratives from the critics, but our scholars are intentionally keeping the Latter-day Saints ignorant solely to protect and enforce their M2C and SITH theories.

It's unconscionable. 

Fortunately, the Internet makes it increasingly difficult for the M2C/SITH citation cartel to continue to mislead the Latter-day Saints. But it requires some effort and critical thinking on the part of members to assess the teachings of these scholars and become fully informed.

_____

I'm astonished at Brother Skousen's work in this book. Normally he is thorough and detailed, but in this book, he omits key witness statements that contradict his theory, as I point out in my commentary. He doesn't consider alternative interpretations of the evidence that contradict his own bias but better explain and reconcile the evidence.

We can only speculate why this is the case. Everyone is subject to bias confirmation, but that doesn't excuse omitting relevant evidence. 

Maybe our LDS scholars are just so used to omitting contradictory evidence that they think this is an appropriate technique. 

However, that technique produces uninformed Latter-day Saints who--and this is critical--think they are fully informed because they read the work of these LDS scholars whom they respect as actual scholars. 

- We see this technique in the Gospel Topics Essays on the Translation of the Book of Mormon, which doesn't even quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the Urim and Thummim. 

- We see it in the Saints book which completely censored the New York Cumorah along with the the teachings about the translation by the Urim and Thummim. 

- We see the M2C scholars steadfastly refusing to inform their readers and students about the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and all the extrinsic evidence that corroborates those teachings.

The worst example, of course, is Book of Mormon Central, which embeds M2C in its logo and spends millions of dollars to promote M2C and SITH. But as we see with Royal Skousen's book here, the problem is pervasive.

The progression away from the teachings of the prophets follows this pattern:

 

Royal Skousen on the Witnesses - Part 1

Just for a fun change of pace, the last couple of days I posted some images to prod a goofy anonymous critic who, as I expected, posted his typically goofy responses.

Today, though, I'm posting something serious. 

It was one thing for the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) theory to worm its way into the Gospel Topics Essays. Next, it surfaced in the Saints book and in the Ensign. Nevertheless, careful readers and students could easily detect the factual and logical fallacies of SITH. 

Now, though, we're about to see a more serious effort to embed SITH in LDS thought.

_____

First, I emphasize that this discussion is not intended for those who think the translation of the Book of Mormon is unimportant or irrelevant. Lots of people accept the Book of Mormon on its face for what it teaches and what it means to them. I have no problem with that at all. They don't care where it came from or how it originated. That's all great. There are people in every religion who take that approach to their respective sacred texts. Anyone who has been a missionary has encountered such people, and that's fine. It's wonderful. If you're in that category, you don't need to read the rest of this post.

This discussion is for those who think the origin of the Book of Mormon matters. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery spoke about it as a critical aspect of the divine authenticity of the book. It's difficult to argue otherwise, particularly for those who seek to share the Book of Mormon with the world outside the believers. I cannot imagine what life is like for missionaries who have to tell people that the Book of Mormon came from a stone in a hat, but statistics show it's not a very successful approach.

The bizarre aspect of the discussion is that SITH as the source of the Book of Mormon is not well supported by the historical evidence in the first place. But neither are claims that SITH is a lie.  

_____

Royal Skousen, the top scholar of the Book of Mormon manuscripts, posted a preliminary version of his next book, which focuses on the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. 

I admire and respect Brother Skousen and I cherish his detailed research. His research is highly influential throughout the Church, deservedly so. His book on the witnesses will likely be considered the definitive statement about those witnesses.

Which is an enormous problem, in my opinion.

In his manuscript, not only does Brother Skousen strongly endorse SITH, but he concludes that Oliver and Joseph gave statements about the translation that were “only partially true” and appear to be “intentionally misleading.” 

Notice how that also sums up the conclusions of our M2C scholars regarding what Joseph and Oliver taught about the New York Cumorah.

While I embrace Brother Skousen's factual research, I don't agree with his conclusions because I think his assumptions are flawed and not supported by the evidence. 

Because I don't see anyone else credibly resisting what the scholars are doing, or even offering a plausible alternative, I took some time to analyze Brother Skousen's document. You can read part 1 here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/royal-skousen-on-witnesses-of-book-of.html

_____

By now, readers here know that the stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH) has replaced the traditional teaching that Joseph Smith translated the engravings on the plates with the Urim and Thummim (U&T). 

Many LDS scholars have joined long-time critics to teach that Joseph never really translated anything, but instead he merely read words that appeared on a stone he put in a hat. 

I realize some LDS authors have responded by claiming all evidence of SITH is bogus or a lie, but that's not historically accurate or even plausible. Plus, it undermines the credibility of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Most of all, such an approach is not necessary to defend and support what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

There is unmistakable, unambiguous, obvious historical evidence to support both scenarios. 

Joseph, Oliver, and Lucy Mack Smith all explained that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim. 

Others, including David Whitmer, Emma Smith, and Martin Harris, claimed that they observed Joseph dictating while his face was in a hat, reading words that appeared on a seer stone. The SITH scenario involves what I call the MIST (mysterious incognito supernatural translator) who had the power to cause words to appear on a stone, which became a sort of supernatural teleprompter.  

Reconciling the evidence has been a challenge. As I describe in my review of Brother Skousen's book, there are four main alternatives. See which one makes the most sense to you.

Origin of M2C Fantasyland

People often ask why our leading LDS scholars continue to teach students (as well as missionaries and new members) that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah. 

These scholars teach instead that there are "two Cumorahs." The one in New York, they claim, is a false tradition, while the real Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in southern Mexico. This is the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

Here's a short explanation of the intellectual genealogy of M2C.

(click on images to enlarge)

RLDS scholar L.E. Hills decided that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and their successors in the LDS church were wrong about Cumorah in New York. He rejected Letter VII and the teachings of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, and every other LDS leader who ever addressed the topic.

Hills published a map in 1917 showing Cumorah in southern Mexico. 

L.E. Hills 1917 map

Over the objection of LDS leaders, LDS scholars copied the map published by L.E. Hills, moved Cumorah a few miles east, called it their own, and published it everywhere, including on the BYU Studies web page, where you can still see it today. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/159-plausible-locations-of-the-final-battles/

BYU Studies map

Church leaders asked the scholars to stop teaching a specific geography, so CES took the BYU Studies map and turned it into a fantasy map, continuing to teach students that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah in New York.  

CES fantasy map

Then BYU scholars who work with Book of Mormon Central used computer graphics to make the CES map look more like a real-world setting. 

https://bom.byu.edu/

Book of Mormon Central continues to insist that the only viable and permissible interpretation of the text is M2C. They've embedded M2C in their logo by using a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, some people wonder why faith in the Book of Mormon is declining, both among young people who are taught this fantasyland version of the Book of Mormon and among nonmembers contacted by the missionaries (who have been taught M2C).

For more info, see http://www.lettervii.com/2017/12/lessonfireside-material.html

Eat your M2C

 Mmmm, delicious.

(click to enlarge)

See the original M2C map, which teaches students the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah, at https://bom.byu.edu/

Back when LDS intellectuals were intellectual

Back in 1984, when the Ensign published the first M2C articles, LDS intellectuals were still open to new ideas. 

Now, though, they are so sure of themselves that they insist only their interpretations are correct and they aggressively fight new ideas. They even incorporate their dogmatic conclusions in their logo!*

They especially resist new ideas that corroborate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

_____

M2C originated with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills. Hills published the first M2C map in 1917. Hill submitted his map and theory to RLDS leaders, but they rejected it.

So did LDS leaders. 

Joseph Fielding Smith specifically denounced it, pointing out that this theory would cause Latter-day Saints to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.**

Nevertheless, over the objections of LDS leaders (including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference), LDS scholars gradually accepted Hills' theory. 

Now M2C is part of the Book of Mormon curriculum at BYU and throughout CES.

The BYU fantasy map at the left is a version of the CES map. They both teach LDS students to understand the Book of Mormon as taking place in a fantasy world.

The de-correlation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah was a gradual process that took decades. 

The game changer was probably John Sorenson's 1978 an Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, David Palmer's 1981 book In Search of Cumorah, and the two M2C Ensign articles published in 1984. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/10/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture-part-2?lang=eng

I give Brother Sorenson a lot of credit for incorporating science into the study of the Book of Mormon. I dedicated my book Moroni's America to him, among others. 

Look at his introduction in the first Ensign article. This is the antithesis of what current LDS intellectuals believe and practice, particularly those affiliated with Book of Mormon Central.

The sciences that study ancient civilizations have undergone significant changes. In the early decades of this century, science was still thought of as the search for and discovery of permanent and infallible truth. Today, scientists and philosophers admit the nature of their enterprise requires that they regularly reinterpret their theories and data.¹ Karl Popper’s view of science as “tentative forever”² has become widely accepted. So even though perhaps a thousand times as much information now exists about the early cultures of America as was available only half a century ago, nowadays the best scholars are far less dogmatic in picturing what happened in the pre-European New World. 

Sorenson was awesome to have written this. If his followers today embraced this approach, we wouldn't have so much confusion about the Book of Mormon.

However, the intellectuals affiliated with Book of Mormon Central, along with their employees and followers, are far more dogmatic than ever before. They cannot write or endorse Popper's view today. They insist that the only viable setting for the Book of Mormon is their Mesoamerican theory, that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah, and that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant, uneducated, mercenary, or an apostate. 

And yet, they are so insecure in their theory that they continue to refuse to tell their followers about alternative faithful interpretations of the Book of Mormon, Church history, and the teachings of the prophets because they know that most members, were they able to make informed choices, would reject M2C in favor of the teachings of the prophets.

1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

2. Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1959), p. 280. “The old scientific ideal of episteme—of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge—has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be ‘absolutely certain.’” (Italics in the original.)

_____

* Here's an example from a 1979 FARMS paper. Notice how the M2C theory is stated as a fact.

The Book of Mormon is the religious chronicle of a small group, descendents [sic] of a common ancestor, who migrated to Mesoamerica and flourished for nearly 1000 years before being culturally assimilated and then militarily annihilated by the larger and more powerful native civilization.  

In 1984 the FARMS newsletter titled Insights explained why their logo, now used by Book of Mormon Central, incorporates a Mayan glyph:

WHAT DOES THE F.A.R.M.S. LOGO STAND FOR? Many people have asked what the F.A.R.M.S. logo means. Here is a brief explanation. The logo is composed of characters from Hebrew, Creek, Mayan and Egyptian, which are four of the main ancient languages and cultures relevant to Book of Mormon reseach [sic]. The characters are set in four stone blocks, symbolizing archaeology and ancient reseach [sic].

Click here for more background.

_____

**President Joseph Fielding Smith, originally published in 1934, repeated in Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3:232–243.

"Within recent years there has arisen among certain students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites were confined almost entirely within the borders of the territory comprising Central America and the southern portion of Mexico-the isthmus of Tehauntepec probably being the "narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather than the isthmus of Panama.

"This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case."

.

BYU Ed Week - Translation simplified

"And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him..." (Doctrine and Covenants 17:6) "Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’" (Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

Many people say the manner of translation doesn't matter because the Book of Mormon is true regardless of how it came to be. That's fine with me. People can believe whatever they want. Most adherents of most religions accept their sacred books on faith, and that's great.

However, the Book of Mormon stands apart from all other books because Joseph presented the text as an actual translation of an ancient record that he obtained by divine intervention, the Book of Mormon is unique evidence of divine origins. The ancient plates came from a resurrected being and Joseph translated the engravings on the plates. 

Lately, some faithful scholars have begun teaching that the Book of Mormon was purely a revelation, whether Joseph received it in a vision or through words that appeared on a seer stone he placed in the hat (SITH). In either case, these scholars say, Joseph didn't actually use the plates. The plates were covered with a cloth during the translation--if they were even present in the room.

If that's the case, then the Book of Mormon is on a par with other revealed books. Instead of unique evidence of God's involvement in the world, the text becomes one of many such texts, sacred because of the belief of adherents but not because it is actually a translation of an ancient record. 

The translation of the Book of Mormon should be a simple concept. Joseph said he copied the characters (presumably because the engravings were so small) and, by means of the Urim and Thummim, translated them. JS-H 1:62.

One way to think of this: the "interpreters" interpreted the characters, which provided a basic meaning. Joseph then used that interpretation to translate the meaning into coherent English, using his own lexicon (mental language bank) that he had acquired during his lifetime. (I think the Lord prepared him for his role from an early age, as I discussed in A Man that Can Translate and Infinite Goodness.)

Joseph's contemporaries claimed lots of things about the translation. David Whitmer, Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, and others offered various explanations over the years. With the possible exception of Oliver, who was authorized to translate, the others necessarily related hearsay regarding the method of translation, so it's no wonder their accounts differ and even contradict one another. 

In recent times, historians seem to have forgotten that Joseph translated behind a curtain or screen. He emphasized that "Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed." (Joseph Smith—History 1:42)

Joseph wasn't destroyed, which means he kept this commandment, which means he didn't show the artifacts to anyone (except presumably Oliver) until after the translation was complete. That means no one saw Joseph use these items during the translation. Some of them inferred, assumed or speculated about what was behind the screen and then related their opinions as fact. 

If there was no screen, then Moroni's commandment to Joseph made no sense. The book Mormonism Unvailed realized this. The whole point of the book was to explain what was behind the "vail" when Joseph was dictating. The book ridiculed the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) explanation (and pointed out that it doesn't matter whether Joseph put a stone or U&T in the hat if he wasn't using the plates) because of the obvious point that if Joseph didn't actually translate the plates, witnesses of the plates would serve no purpose. 

It was precisely because Joseph dictated from behind a screen that the Solomon Spalding theory was possible. The Spalding theory persuaded most of the world in the 1800s, which was why Oliver specifically refuted it when he rejoined the Church in 1848 by reaffirming that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, And handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true. Sidney Rigdon did not write it. Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the prophet.

You can see Reuben Miller's journal entry here:

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94df92/0/15 

Oliver's testimony is all the more significant because when he spoke, he had in his possession the seer stone Joseph had given him, the one published in the Ensign a few years ago. 

He did not hold it up and display it as the means of translation. 

Instead, he reaffirmed that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

That said, we do have accounts of SITH (although Martin, Emma, and David didn't agree on the details). In my view, the best explanation for these accounts is that Joseph gave a demonstration of the translation process using SITH, which was the closest approximation he could come up with without violating the commandment to not show the artifacts. All along, historians have merely assumed that whatever Joseph dictated during the demonstration(s) made it into the Book of Mormon, but we can't know that because no one (other than the scribes) recorded what, exactly, Joseph dictated, and there is no chain of custody of the scribal work during the demonstrations. None of the pages of the Original Manuscript indicate where and when they were written. (In A Man that Can Translate I propose what Joseph dictated during the demonstrations.)

The table below breaks down the alternatives. No shading shows theories that necessarily involve divine origins. The dark shading shows theories that exclude divine intervention. The light shading shows theories that involve supernatural intervention, whether divine or not, depending on one's preference, belief, conviction, etc.

Book of Mormon origin theories
All theories can range from loose, tight, or iron-clad control
Used the plates		Did not use the plates
Curtain	No Curtain	Curtain	No Curtain (catalyst)
Translation. Joseph studied the characters, copied them, then translated them by means of the U&T that came with the plates, studying it out in his mind, using his own lexicon	Translation. Joseph learned the characters engraved on the plates and translated from behind the curtain, but also conducted one or more demonstrations using the seer stone in the hat	Composition. Joseph read the Spalding manuscript, supplemented with Rigdon’s Christian sermons, except when conducting demonstrations	Transcription. Joseph read words that appeared on a seer stone (and/or the spectacles) that he placed in a hat, with the plates serving as a catalyst to the process
Transcription. Joseph looked on the plates with the U&T and dictated the exact words that appeared in the U&T		Composition. Joseph and/or others composed the text, wrote it out, and read the manuscript	Transcription. Joseph read words that he saw in vision as he looked on a seer stone in the hat
			Transcription. Joseph dictated words as they came into his mind
			Composition. Joseph recited from memory a text he invented
			Composition. Joseph related the text as a story he invented using memory clues

BYU Ed. Week - Why Mesoamerica (M2C)

Those familiar with Church history and the teachings of the prophets are puzzled as to why so many LDS scholars teach that Cumorah is in Mexico. (This is the Mesoamerican/Two Cumorahs theory, or M2C, described below.) The short answer: M2C has become a tradition, supported by bias confirmation.

Bottom line: people can believe whatever they want. Basic psychology requires people to confirm their biases by selectively filtering the information they accept.

Those who seek to corroborate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah have an abundance of evidence to support their views, including evidence from Church history, the text itself, and extrinsic scientific evidence.

Those who seek to reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah also have an abundance of evidence to support their views, including evidence from Church history, the text itself, and extrinsic scientific evidence. 

Some who reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah still accept the Book of Mormon so they push M2C instead.

Others who reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah reject the Book of Mormon so push their theories that the Book of Mormon is fiction instead. 

As always, belief is a choice. People who claim they are "following the evidence" are deluding themselves because in every instance, they choose to follow whatever evidence confirms their bias and reject whatever evidence contradicts their bias.

It shouldn't require much thought to realize that rejecting the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah undermines faith in the rest of the teachings of those same prophets. Long ago, Joseph Fielding Smith warned that M2C would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith. We see the evidence of that all around us. 

_____

Teaching M2C is not only puzzling, but when BYU and CES faculty teach M2C, it is a direct challenge to the Gospel Topics Entry which says, "the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas."

Of course, that position is not based on the text of the Book of Mormon, which never mentions America. It is based on the teachings of the prophets, and the same prophets who taught that the Book of Mormon took place in the ancient Americas also taught that Cumorah is in New York. 

Nevertheless, these Church employees continue to teach M2C by telling students that the prophets, beginning with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, were wrong about Cumorah.

Book of Mormon Central (BMC) has raised and spent millions of dollars to promote M2C. 

M2C is an integral part of their logo, which depicts a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon. BMC uses this logo to imprint M2C on the minds of everyone who reads their materials or watches their videos.

We love everyone at BMC. They have good intentions and most of what they do is awesome. They have accumulated lots of material to confirm their M2C bias. But M2C is unpersuasive to many faithful Latter-day Saints (not to mention to non-LDS Mayan experts, not to mention most of the world). 

We continually encourage BMC to drop their dogmatic insistence on M2C and instead embrace the Church's position that accommodates multiple working hypotheses by all faithful Church members.

Past experience teaches that the BMC scholars will continue to promote M2C as the only acceptable setting for the Book of Mormon, but we can always hope for improvement.

_____

Back to the original question: why do these faithful LDS scholars continue to promote M2C?

The simple answer is the scholars (beginning with RLDS scholars Henry A. Stebbins and memorialized in a map by L.E. Hills in 1917, later adopted by LDS scholars) assumed Joseph Smith taught that the Nephites lived in Central America, that the New York Cumorah doesn't meet their own subjective criteria for Cumorah, and that therefore Cumorah must be in southern Mexico. This leads them to conclude that the New York Cumorah was a false tradition that Joseph and his associates adopted, thereby misleading the Church and its members for over 150 years until the scholars figured out the truth.

Thus, they have "two Cumorahs," a false one in New York and the true one somewhere in southern Mexico. 

Those who know Church history and read the text carefully can see the fallacies of the M2C assumptions, but that doesn't matter. M2C is now widespread because our LDS scholars have taught M2C for decades at BYU and in CES. M2C has become the filter through which BYU and CES students read the text.

The scholars effectively canonized the John Sorenson maps by publishing them widely and keeping them on the BYU Studies web page, where they still reside. For years they were on the splash page, but now at least they're buried under "Further Study," where you can see them here.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/160-plausible-locations-in-mesoamerica-for-book-of-mormon-places/

This one shows you exactly where (in Mexico) Cumorah is supposed to be. It is definitely not in New York.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/159-plausible-locations-of-the-final-battles/

These LDS scholars have persuaded themselves not only that the prophets were wrong, but that they, the scholars, should change and modify the text to incorporate such essential elements as volcanoes and Mayan temples.

When told to stop teaching a specific geography, BYU faculty developed an "internal map" that implemented the M2C interpretations of the text in a computer-generated fantasy world. 

The fantasy map corrects one of the major problems with M2C (the north/south orientation) but still teaches students that the prophets have been wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Worse, though, it teaches students to think of the Book of Mormon as taking place in a fantasy world, not even on the American continent.

_____

Some historians overlook what was once common knowledge. Common knowledge becomes lost when people don't document it, or when historians ignore the documents. Some years ago I was teaching college students who had to look on their phones to figure out if the Vietnam war was before or after World War II. Both were history to them, something you read in books. To those citizens who lived during the Vietnam war, it was common knowledge that the Vietnam war was after WWII.

The New York Cumorah was so well known during Joseph Smith's lifetime that people didn't make a point of reporting about it, except in passing. Even in Letter VII, Oliver Cowdery declared it a fact but did not see the need to explain how he knew it was a fact because it was such common knowledge. Same with Joseph when he wrote what became D&C 128:20.

We can see from the historical documents that Moroni identified the hill in New York as Cumorah the very first night he met Joseph Smith. Joseph's family, all of the Three Witnesses, and early members such as Parley P. Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young all knew the hill where Joseph found the plates was the same Cumorah mentioned in Mormon 6:6. Church leaders who succeeded Joseph taught the New York Cumorah consistently and persistently through at least the 1970s, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

_____

If you ask around, you'll see that many Church members don't realize what LDS scholars are teaching about Cumorah. It's one thing to see a depiction of Book of Mormon events in Latin America. For many years, Church authors and authorities referred to Central and South America as lands of the Book of Mormon (the "hemispheric model"), but they always emphasized those references were speculative. The only certain location was the New York Cumorah. We can see this distinction in the 1879 footnotes in the official LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.

The hemispheric model was abandoned because it never aligned with the text or relevant archaeology, anthropology, etc. But scholars instead embraced a "limited geography" in Mesoamerica. Now, every time you see a depiction of Book of Mormon events in Central America (Mesoamerica) you are seeing a depiction of the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory (M2C). 

M2C is the theory that claims 

(i) Joseph adopted a false tradition that the hill in New York was the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

(ii) The "real" Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in Southern Mexico.

(iii) This means there are "Two Cumorahs," a false one in New York and a real one in Mexico. 

Remember, every time you see the logo of Book of Mormon Central you are seeing M2C.

_____