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.

_____

BYU Ed Week-Hearts Knit together

Elder Uchtdorf's devotional talk at BYU Education Week focused on Mosiah 18:21, one of the favorite passages in the Book of Mormon.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/event/byu-education-week-devotional

Mosiah 18:21 also happens to be a focus of understanding the translation. Here is an excerpt from my book, A Man that Can Translate. I developed this approach in much more depth in my latest book, Infinite Goodness, which focuses on non-biblical intertextuality.

In my view, the appearance of non-biblical intertextuality is solid evidence that Joseph Smith actually translated the engravings on the plates.

_____

p. 225. ... passages in the text include bits of New and Old Testament phrases joined together to compose a single verse in the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen describes this as “blending.”

 

[Blending] is quite different from a paraphrastic quoting of a single King James passage (or a midrash-like commentary on it). It is as if the translator knows the King James Bible so well that hardly anything can be translated without using biblical phrases and expressions. Thus the Book of Mormon translation is much more than a literal rendition of what was originally on the plates. It is a highly creative translation affected by a thoroughly absorbed knowledge of the King James Bible.[1]

 

The concept of blending is comparable to the concept of chunking. In both cases, the author or speaker rearranges terms, phrases and concepts drawn from his/her mental language bank to express his/her thoughts that often have little or nothing to do with the original source.

The blending in the Book of Mormon is fluid. The manuscripts show no evidence of trial-and-error dictation or collaboration. And this is exactly how language works in our minds. We formulate thoughts by arranging and rearranging chunks of language we have heard or read elsewhere, converting those chunks into our own unique expressions.

The first example of blending Skousen offers is from Mosiah 18:21, “having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.”

This passage contains the only usage of the term knit in the Book of Mormon. The term appears seven times in the KJV. Three of these involve the term heart(s).

Epistle Dedicatory. “is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You…”

1 Chronicles 12:17. “If ye become peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you…”

Colossians 2:2. “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love…”

Skousen demonstrates the blending this way:[2]

 

Mosiah 18:21    having their hearts                 knit together in unity and in love one towards another

Colossians 2:2        …  their hearts…   being knit together                    in love

 

Skousen points out that other writers used similar phrases.

1652, John Clarke, “and had their hearts knit together in a more than ordinary bond of love.”

1656, Alexander Grosse, “and to have our hearts knit together in love.”

Of course, both of these authors postdated the 1611 King James Version and the Epistle Dedicatory, so they represent blending of biblical passages themselves.

There is another element of Mosiah 18:21 that has a relationship to a Biblical passage. The phrase “in unity” appears only once in the Book of Mormon and once in the Bible. Psalm 133:1 reads, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”

Adding this passage to the blending gives us a more complete accounting for the passage:

 

Mosiah 18:21    having their hearts                   knit together in unity and in love one towards another

Colossians 2:2        …  their hearts…     being knit together                   in love

Psalm 133:1                                …dwell            together in unity

 

Whether he composed the text or translated it, Joseph could have blended Colossians and Psalms subconsciously, by randomly choosing passages from different parts of the Bible, or by coincidence.  The combination of Old and New Testament verses is problematic for a literal translation because the Book of Mormon authors presumably had no access to New Testament texts. That’s why this is good evidence of both composition and translation. Note, however, that we still must omit much of Colossians and Psalms to make the blending work.

Skousen treats KJV blending as evidence that Joseph did not translate the text.

 

It is as if the translator knows the King James Bible so well that hardly anything can be translated without using biblical phrases and expressions… Each example provides an extraordinary demonstration of linguistic gymnastics. Of course, all of this is quite amazing, perhaps even miraculous, if one assumes that Joseph Smith must have been the one responsible for all of this textual manipulation.[3]

 Without discounting the spiritual element involved with the translation (“the gift and power of God”), there is a source of blending in the Book of Mormon that Skousen did not consider. That is, the text of the Book of Mormon could blend not only the KJV, but also the writings of prominent Christian theologians such as Jonathan Edwards and James Hervey.

2. 18^th century theologians.

 As a rule, preachers and theologians quote, paraphrase, and rearrange passages from the Bible. The blending in the Book of Mormon is different, though, in the sense that passages (chunks) of biblical and theological language are used not to borrow authority from the original, but instead to repurpose the chunks for an entirely different document. That distinction is key to understanding how Joseph translated the text.

Let’s start with Jonathan Edwards, the “father of American theology.”[1] He introduced Colossians 2:2 with his own preface and paraphrased the rest.[2]  Separately, he spoke of counsel to live in unity and love one another. His work offers a simpler and cleaner blending than one derived solely from the KJV.

Jonathan Edwards: “and seemed, by their discourse and behavior after public worship, to have their ‘hearts knit together in love’ Colossians 2:2.” Also: "giving of them counsel, to live in unity and love one another, as one that was going from them…”

Combining these quotations, we see a closer fit than the KJV verses, and without the omissions those verses require. Plus, the Edwards phrase starts with a form of the verb have.

 

Mosiah 18:21    having their hearts                 knit together in unity and in love

Colossians 2:2        …  their hearts…   being knit together                    in love

Psalm 133:1                                      … dwell    together in unity

_____

Mosiah 18:21    having their hearts                 knit together in unity and in love

Edwards              have their hearts                  knit together                   in love

Edwards                                                                      in unity and    love

 

To be sure, Edwards used the Bible here, but he did so in chunks, putting biblical passages in his own construction to paraphrase rather than directly quote the Bible, much the same way that the Book of Mormon does. Because the original chunks are so diverse, I suggest this blending in the Book of Mormon is not evidence of copying from the Bible (or from Edwards) but instead is evidence of composition or translation from Joseph’s lexicon, his mental language bank.

---

[1] Wilson (2012): 132.

[2] For the original source, enter search terms at http://edwards.yale.edu/.

---

[1] Skousen, Part 4 (2018): 1031.

[2] Skousen, Part 4 (2018): 1032.

[3] Skousen, Part 4 (2018): 1031.

BYU Ed Week - Why Cumorah matters Part 2

Readers here know that we're happy for people to believe whatever they want. But, as they say, decisions have consequences.

In my view, extrinsic evidence (historical analysis, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) corroborates the traditional teachings of the prophets regarding the origins and historicity of the Book of Mormon. However, in recent decades, those traditional teachings have been largely abandoned by many LDS intellectuals, including some of the most influential intellectuals in the Church. 

That is not a criticism of anyone; it's merely a factual observation that anyone can see in the literature. I assume that everyone involved with these topics, whether students, teachers, intellectuals, leaders, members or nonmembers, acts in good faith to the best of their understanding. 

This post just considers the impact of changing narratives, not their validity. 

By now, most Latter-day Saints know that the growth of the Church has slowed considerably in recent years. There are myriad factors, including declining birth rates, decreased interest in religion generally, as well as doctrinal, historical, cultural, and social conflicts.

Still, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The prophets have consistently taught that the core message of the Restoration, that Jesus is the Christ, is based on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and its witness of Christ, which in turn validates the calling of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Restoration.

Two critical components of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, as taught by the prophets, are 

(i) its origin as a translation of ancient records and 

(ii) its historicity as an authentic account of actual people in the real world.

Regarding historicity, the New York Cumorah--the only definitive pin in the map taught by the prophets--was well established until an RLDS scholar invented M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) in the early 1900s. Over the objection of LDS leaders, LDS scholars adopted M2C. The New York Cumorah was taught in General Conference in 1975 and 1978, but scholars aggressively promoted M2C in the late 1970s, and because of their positions of influence at BYU, managed to replace the New York Cumorah with M2C in the 1980s, at first among scholars. In the ensuing decades, their influence over BYU and CES students prevailed over the long-held teachings of the prophets.

A similar cycle occurred with respect to the translation of the Book of Mormon. The traditional teaching by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim prevailed among LDS Church leaders until 2007, which was the last time it was taught in General Conference. LDS scholars have largely abandoned the Urim and Thummim in favor of the "stone-in-the-hat" narrative (SITH), which claims Joseph didn't really translate anything but mere dictated, or transcribed, words that appeared on a stone he put in a hat.

We're all open to new information, multiple working hypotheses, etc. I can only relate my own experience and what the data shows. 

In my experience, people respond less receptively to the Book of Mormon when told it originated from a stone in the hat (SITH) than when told that Joseph translated engravings on ancient plates. While the U&T is outside ordinary experience, at least it's what Joseph claimed. For people to accept SITH, they have to not only accept an even less plausible explanation (words appearing on a stone in a hat), but they have to also reject what Joseph himself taught. But since SITH has prevailed lately, I assume other people must be having success finding people who readily embrace SITH. 

Likewise, in my experience people more readily accept the unambiguous teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah than the musings of scholars about an unknown hill in Southern Mexico, but apparently others have different experiences. 

And again, I'm fine with people believing whatever they want. 

The following graphic depicts a correlation between historical events and Church growth rates. We can all compare growth rates during times when the New York Cumorah and Urim and Thummim narratives dominated, versus times when M2C and SITH narratives dominate.

Of course, correlation does not prove causation. There are lots of factors. However, it's worth considering the impact of changing the narratives regarding the origins and historicity of the Book of Mormon.

(click to enlarge)

Annotations:

A.      1975, 1978. The last time New York Cumorah was taught in General Conference

B.      1978 Sorenson's Ancient American Setting published, promotes M2C

1979 CES manual on Book of Mormon reaffirms NY Cumorah 

1979 FARMS organized, promotes M2C

C.      1990 In response to increasing confusion about Cumorah, a letter from office of First Presidency reaffirms NY Cumorah and is widely circulated, but criticized by scholars

D.      1997 FARMS joins BYU; FairMormon (now FairLatterdaySaints) organized

E.       2000 CES drops the NY Cumorah from curriculum

F.       2004 BMAF organized to promote M2C 

2004 This Land: Only One Cumorah teaches NY Cumorah

2005 Rough Stone Rolling teaches SITH

2006 BYU Studies teaches M2C

G.      2007 The last sermon in General Conference to teach the Urim and Thummim

H.      2011 Book of Mormon in America's Heartland teaches NY Cumorah

2012 Interpreter founded by leading LDS scholars to teach M2C and SITH

2012 FairMormon agrees with CES Letter re: M2C and SITH 

2013 Gospel Topics Essay (GTE) on Book of Mormon Translation teaches SITH, doesn't even quote Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery regarding the Urim and Thummim

I.       2015 Ensign teaches SITH, publishes photos of "seer stone"

2015 Book of Mormon Central (BMC, a subsidiary of BMAF) organized, begins spending millions of dollars to teach M2C and SITH

2015 BYU and CES adopt a fantasy map based on M2C to teach the Book of Mormon

J.       2018 Saints, Vol. 1, teaches SITH and censors New York Cumorah to accommodate M2C

2019 GTE on Book of Mormon geography ignores Cumorah, accommodates M2C

2020 January Ensign quotes David Whitmer's "To All Believers in Christ" and depicts Joseph using SITH with plates covered

2020 BMC introduces SeminaryCentral to promote M2C and SITH to younger students

BYU Ed. Week - Why the New York Cumorah matters

Note: During BYU Education Week, I'm posting some basic principles for new readers.

The New York Cumorah has never been more important than it is now. Not only are critics of the Book of Mormon claiming the book is 19th century fiction, but many faithful Latter-day Saints, forced by scholars to accept the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) as the only possible interpretation of the text, no longer believe the Book of Mormon is authentic history. 

It's easy to see why this is happening. Long ago, Joseph Smith explained that "if we start right it is very easy for us to go right all the time but if we start wrong it is hard to get right." 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/2

Joseph and Oliver made sure we could "start right" by explaining that the New York Cumorah was a fact. They could not have been more explicit.

Nevertheless, certain scholars have persuaded many Latter-day Saints to reject what Joseph and Oliver taught, making it difficult for us to "go right all the time" and "hard to get right."

_____

There were two simple reasons why Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery explained that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 was the same hill where Joseph found the plates. 

#1. They visited the repository in the hill multiple times. This used to be well known by most Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young brought it up shortly before he died because he feared--correctly, it turns out--that the knowledge would be lost if he didn't discuss it publicly. 

For an analysis of Brigham's statement about the repository, go to:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/brigham-young-on-new-york-cumorah.html

You can see some of the references to the repository at this link, which has a link to a paper on BYU's website:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/cumorahs-cave-by-cameron-packer.html

The problem with that paper is it edits Brigham's talk to omit some key points, as you can see by looking at the analysis of Brigham's statement. 

_____

#2. They knew it was solid evidence of historicity. Mormonism Unvailed had claimed the Book of Mormon was a fictional account, based on Solomon Spalding's lost novel about the origins of the Moundbuilders in Ohio. https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/278/mode/2up

Joseph and Oliver denied they used Spalding's manuscript. That was enough for believers, but because that Spalding manuscript was never found (like the gold plates), they could not refute the claim by demonstrating that the Spalding novel was not the source of the Book of Mormon.  

Consequently, in Letter VII, Oliver refuted the Spalding argument (and all other arguments based on the claim that the Book of Mormon is fiction) by relating the fact that a key location of Book of Mormon was definitely known: the New York Cumorah. In other words, he explained it was a fact that the hill from which Joseph retrieved the abridged plates in Moroni's stone box was the very Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

If you haven't read Letter VII, here is a link to Joseph Smith's own history:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

By declaring the New York Cumorah was a fact, Oliver firmly established the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Without such a definite "pin in the map," critics can easily claim the book is fiction. With that definite "pin in the map" we can make sense of the text in the real world. IOW, with the New York Cumorah as a key to interpreting the text, we can reconcile the text with relevant scientific information available today. 

For example, we can see that, based on relevant archaeology and anthropology, the population numbers in the text were accurate. There were never "millions" of Nephites. They did not build massive stone pyramids. They did not live among a much larger literate, culturally different, population that the text failed to mention. They did not live among volcanoes (which are never mentioned in the text). They lived along rivers and built ships. 

The Nephite/Jaredite civilizations consisted of what we know today as Hopewell/Adena. This is why Joseph Smith referred to the plains of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois as the "plains of the Nephites." This is why he identified as Jaredite a site we know today as Adena, and he identified as Nephite a site we know today as Hopewell. 

Now that many prominent LDS scholars have rejected Oliver's statements of fact (even though he was the Assistant President of the Church when he wrote Letter VII and even though he and Joseph had personally visited the repository in the hill), the strong defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon has been removed. Consequently, believers are left with a cacophony of claims about the actual setting of Book of Mormon events. BYU teachers use a fantasy map to teach the Book of Mormon, conveying the unmistakable impression that the text describes a fictional setting.  

The New York Cumorah, consistently and persistently taught by Church leaders starting with Joseph and Oliver, serves the same purpose today that it did in 1835 when Oliver published Letter VII. It refutes claims that the book is fiction and it serves as a guide to understanding the text.

_____ 

Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes

I posted this several years ago but the topic comes up from time to time so I'm reposting it today with some updates.

Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes

Sometimes people still cite Orson Pratt's Book of Mormon footnotes to support either (i) their own hemispheric or Latin American geography theories or (ii) their theory that everyone in Joseph's day was an ignorant speculator and was wrong (usually to promote M2C, the Mesoamerican/Two Cumorahs theory). Most people in both groups are Cumorah deniers. I'm not aware of anyone who accepts Orson Pratt's geography ideas completely.

The footnotes show that Joseph's contemporaries all agreed that Cumorah was in New York, but they realized they had to speculate about the rest. Pratt even uses speculative language when he refers to the South American locations, but he is specific and clear about the location of Cumorah.

Because many people have never seen these footnotes, I'm providing snapshots of them from the 1879 edition.

On assignment, Orson Pratt prepared the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, dividing it into the chapters and verses we still use today. (I've commented on some divisions that, in retrospect, look like errors, but it's not a big deal once you recognize the problems.)

Brother Pratt also added explanatory footnotes about geography. These tell us a lot about what people who actually knew Joseph Smith were thinking, as I'll explain in a moment.

First, I want to reiterate what I think is a related mistake in Church history that is still being perpetuated in the Joseph Smith Papers. I wrote about it here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/08/error-in-joseph-smith-papers.html

This is the note in the Joseph Smith Papers that claims Joseph "enthusiastically" greeted the Stephens books. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-orson-pratt-an-interesting-account-of-several-remarkable-visions-1840/1#historical-intro

It's a nonsensical comment for several reasons, not the least of which is that Orson Pratt rejected a limited Mesoamerican setting when he created these footnotes. But as long as our historians defer to the M2C scholars, this error will continue.
__________________________

Orson Pratt's footnotes were removed in the 1920 edition, so they are not familiar to many LDS. If you don't have a a copy of an 1879 edition, you can see that one and many additional editions online here: http://bookofmormon.online/fax. (Actually, I have an 8th Independence edition, which is not listed there but is based on Pratt's 1879 Liverpool Edition.)

Overall, we see that Pratt was confident about some locations (crossing the Atlantic Ocean, the United States and the Hill Cumorah in New York) but speculative about other locations (everything in Central and South America).

Joseph Smith rejected Pratt's hemispheric ideas, as we can see from the editing of the 1842 Wentworth letter. Later in 1842, an anonymous article in the Times and Seasons (T&S) claimed Zarahemla was in Quirigua, Guatemala. Neither Pratt nor anyone else ever quoted that article or attributed it to Joseph Smith, which suggests they knew Joseph had nothing to do with it. In fact, Pratt and others flatly contradicted the T&S articles when they claimed Zarahemla was in South America. The historical evidence, IMO, shows that William Smith and Benjamin Winchester collaborated to write the anonymous articles in the 1842 T&S. Other early Church authors also described variations of a hemispheric model. The only thing they agreed upon was that Cumorah was in New York, just as Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith said.

Only in recent decades have Cumorah deniers arisen in the Church who claim Cumorah was not in New York. We see from Pratt's footnotes that at least among those who actually knew Joseph Smith, there was no question about the New York location of Cumorah. His footnote about Cumorah says, "The hill Cumorah is in Manchester, Ontario Co., N. York." As you'll see, his other comments were more speculative.

____________________

Here are some of Pratt's 1879 footnotes by chapter and verse, with my comments in red.

Many Waters = Atlantic Ocean

1 Nephi 13:10: And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; (e: The Atlantic Ocean) and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren.

Mother Gentiles = British

And I beheld that their mother (j: The British) Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

Mighty Nation = The United States

1 Nephi 22:7. And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty (d: The United States) nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

Hill Cumorah = Manchester

Mormon 6:2. And I Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land (a: The hill Cumorah is in Manchester, Ontario Co., N. York) of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.

Heaps of Earth = Ancient Mounds of North America

Ether 11:6. And there was great calamity in all the land, for they had testified that a great curse should come upon the land, and also upon the people, and that there should be a great destruction among them, such an one as never had been upon the face of the earth, and their bones should become as heaps (c: The ancient mounds of North America) of earth upon the face of the land except they should repent of their wickedness.

______________________________

Speculative ideas:

The following footnotes use hedging terms such as "believed to be," "probably" and "supposed to be" instead of the unambiguous, affirmative statements such as the declaration that the hill Cumorah is in New York.

Lehi's landing = Chili (sic)

1 Nephi 18:23. And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised (k: believed to be on the coast of Chili, S. America) land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.

[Note: This footnote may be a reference to the Frederick G. Williams note that some have relied on to claim Lehi landed on the west coast of Chile around the 30th parallel. There is no evidence that Joseph ever said or endorsed such an idea. In fact, in 1841 someone brought a large scroll to Nauvoo purporting to show Lehi and his family landing in South America. You've probably never heard about this because Joseph ignored it. IMO, it seems likely Joseph may have said something about Lehi landing at the 30th parallel, but people such as Williams inferred he meant the southern parallel. Jerusalem is close to the 30th parallel (31.7 degrees north), but in the north. In the U.S., the 30th parallel is roughly the north border of Florida (the 31st parallel is Florida's border with Alabama). It makes sense that Lehi would have sailed to a familiar latitude for climate and astronomical reasons.]

Land of Nephi = Ecuador

Land of Zarahemla = Colombia

Omni 1:12-13. 12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, (g: The land Nephi is supposed to have been in or near Ecuador, South America) and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—

 13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla (h: The land of Zarahemla is supposed to have been north of the head waters of the river Magdalena, its northern boundary being a few days' journey south of the isthmus).

[Pratt here refers to an "isthmus," a term never used in the text. He apparently conflated the terms "narrow neck," "narrow neck of land," and "small neck of land" to refer to the same thing, although he didn't put that in a footnote at Ether 10:20, the only verse that refers to a "narrow neck of land."]

Sidon = Magdalena

Alma 2:15. And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river (g: Supposed to be Magdalena) Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites.

Lehi = North America
Mulek = South America

Alma 22:31. And they came from there up (2q; Into Bountiful and Zarahemla, South America being called Lehi, and North America, Mulek) into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.
[Pratt considered the land southward to mean South America and the land northward to mean North America. See footnotes to Ether 10:21]

Ablom = New England States

Ether 9:3. And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, (d: probably on the shore of the New England States) by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family.

Ripliancum = Lake Ontario

Ether 15:8. And it came to pass that he came to the waters (c: supposed to be Lake Ontario) of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all; wherefore, when they came to these waters they pitched their tents; and Shiz also pitched his tents near unto them; and therefore on the morrow they did come to battle.

D&C 84 and the New Jerusalem

Last week's Come Follow Me lesson focused on D&C 84. Most of the youtube commentators don't tell you how this relates to the Book of Mormon because they all believe in M2C and they can't make sense of why Ether would tell Coriantumr about the New Jerusalem in Missouri if they were both living far away in Mesoamerica. 

Of course, people can believe whatever they want. I have no problem with the M2C scholars teaching and believing whatever they want. However, they owe it to their students to explain there are multiple working hypotheses, including one that accepts and corroborates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Once we accept what the prophets have taught about Cumorah in New York, it's easy to see why Ether told Coriantumr about the New Jerusalem. After the final Jaredite battles ended, Coriantumr went on a journey to see the site Ether told him about, and that's how he encountered the people of Zarahemla.

Coriantumr couldn't communicate with the people of Zarahemla, so he carved his history on a large stone. Later, Mosiah translated it. Very simple and clear, as well as consistent with relevant archaeology, anthropology, geography, etc.

_____

The introduction to Section 84 paraphrases the original explanation for this Section, which explains that Joseph had specific questions. Because he didn't say specifically, we assume he asked about questions the returning missionaries had posed. "The elders began to return from their Missions to the eastern states, and present the histories of their several stewardships in the Lord’s vineyard; and while together in these seasons of joy, I inquired of the Lord and received the following."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/235.

Joseph's first question, given the first verses of the answer, had to do with the location of the New Jerusalem, spoken of in Revelation 3:12 and 21:2. It's an obvious question because the Lord had mentioned the New Jerusalem in previous revelations (D&C 42 and 45). More significantly, the Book of Mormon referred to it in 3 Nephi and Ether, relating that it would be located "in this land," referring to the land where the Savior visited the Nephites.  

The Savior told the Nephites, "And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem." (3 Nephi 20:22)

Ether explained that the choice land "was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord. Behold, Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land.... And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land..." (Ether 13:3–4, 6)

D&C 84 explains where "this land" was. 

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:2–3)

The earliest edition of Section 84 is found in the Joseph Smith Papers, here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-22-23-september-1832-dc-84/1 

BTW, the term "New Jerusalem" links to this entry in the Joseph Smith Papers:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/new-jerusalem

Notice the comment I bolded in red. The scholars want us to believe the Saints in Joseph's day were so ignorant that they actually believed the American Indians were Lamanites--as if D&C 28, 30, and 32 were also wrong. So far as I know, no one has claimed any modern revelation to repudiate those revelations or Letter VII or any of the other teachings about the New York Cumorah.

It's bizarre how difficult the scholars try to make all of this. The explanation that Joseph and Oliver gave is by far the simplest, clearest, most parsimonious, etc. 

New Jerusalem

Summary

The Book of Mormon indicated that, in preparation for Jesus Christ’s second coming, a city should be built on the American continent and called the New Jerusalem.

1

 The Book of Mormon further explained that the remnant of the seed of Joseph (understood to be the American Indians in JS’s day) would gather to this city, where Christ would return in connection with his second coming.

2

 Several of JS’s early revelations stated that the New Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Zion or Mount Zion, would also serve as a gathering place for the Saints and that the location for it would be revealed to them.

3

 Other revelations prophesied that Enoch and his people would join the New Jerusalem at the time of Christ’s second coming.

4

 The New Jerusalem was described as “a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the most high God.”

5

 The term New Jerusalem was used synonymously with Zion by the early 1830s.

6

 While uncertainty initially existed regarding the location of the New Jerusalem, a July 1831 revelation designated Missouri as the place to build the city of Zion and identified Independence as the center place of Zion.

7

 See also “

Zion

.”