Two choices and their simple maps

Readers of this blog know that I support having multiple working hypotheses available, at least when articulated pursuant to the FAITH model that separates Facts from Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories that lead to the various Hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon.

In my view, every Latter-day Saint should be aware that there are two general hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon. Both hypotheses are supported by the text and extrinsic evidence. They differ primarily in the starting point. The two hypotheses are separated by whether the proponents accept or reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

_____

There are two separate aspects of the setting of the Book of Mormon that some people conflate for various reasons.

What is known.

We can all read the historical record. Oliver Cowdery, as Assistant President of the Church, formally published the first history of the Church, including his declaration that it is a fact that the hill Cumorah/Ramah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill near Palmyra, New York, where Moroni built the stone box for the plates. That statement was corroborated by several other contemporaries of Joseph Smith, and by Joseph himself in D&C 128:20, as well as his successors in Church leadership.

The New York Cumorah is corroborated by extrinsic evidence of archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography, etc.

What is not known.

Other than Cumorah,  details of the setting of the Book of Mormon remain unknown. Historical accounts refer to potential sites (Manti, plains of the Nephites, etc.) and D&C 125 references Zarahemla, but these lack the authoritative declarations that we have about Cumorah. 

These details are complicated by (i) the vague distance and directional information in the text, (ii) the existence of innumerable potential sites (depending on one's interpretation of the text) and (iii) the destruction (both man-made and natural) of many more potential sites, including land deformations. 

_____

The oft-cited entry on Book of Mormon Geography wisely avoids mentioning Cumorah because 

(i) so many Latter-day Saints have been taught and trained to reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and 

(ii) even some people who still accept the teachings of the prophets have become adamant about their own particular interpretations.

Obviously I have a hypothesis, which I set out in my book Moroni's America. But as I explained in that book, this is merely a hypothesis based on the few known facts and the assumptions and inferences that make sense to me. 

The simple map is easy for anyone to understand.

For me, as for many others who grew up attending seminary and institute, this was a major paradigm shift from what we were taught by the experts (so-called). 

They persuaded me of a map similar to the one below.

Ideally, every Latter-day Saint should be aware of at least these two distinct hypotheses.

What do you think?