Book of Mormon Grammar - Kudos to BOMC

On March 14, 2015, there was a conference at BYU titled "Exploring the Complexities in the English Language of the Book of Mormon." We were in New Zealand at the time so I missed the conference, but I really like what Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack are doing with the text. I was delighted that Book of Mormon Central uploaded the video recently. Here's the link.

This is the kind of resource that BOMC excels at making available. I recommend the video to anyone interested in Book of Mormon scholarship. The topic might seem a little arcane and narrow, but it's not. Carmack does a great job explaining why we have some of the odd grammar in the Book of Mormon text.

Here's the abstract:

"The grammar of the Book of Mormon has been naively criticized since its publication in 1830. The supposedly bad grammar is a match with language found in the Early Modern English textual record. Syntactic usage, especially past tense with did and the command construction, points only to that era. Book of Mormon language exhibits well-formed variation typical of the 16th and 17th centuries."

I'd like a transcript--maybe there is one that I don't know about yet--but for now the video is fantastic.

Go watch it.

B.H. Roberts on studying the Book of Mormon

A quotation from B.H. Roberts to always keep in mind.

We desire only to ascertain the truth; nothing but the truth will endure; and the ascertainment of the truth and the proclamation of the truth in any given case, or upon any subject, will do no harm to the work of the Lord which is itself truth. Nor need we be surprised if now and then we find our predecessors, many of whom bear honored names and deserve our respect and gratitude for what they achieved in making clear the truth, as they conceived it to be—we need not be surprised if we sometimes find them mistaken in their conceptions and deductions; just as the generations who succeed us in unfolding in a larger way some of the yet unlearned truths of the Gospel, will find that we have had some misconceptions and made some wrong deductions in our day and time. . . .

The generation which preceded us did not exhaust by their knowledge all the truth, so that nothing was left for us in its unfolding; no, not even in respect of the Book of Mormon; any more than we shall exhaust all discovery in relation to that book and leave nothing for the generation following us to
develop. All which is submitted, especially to the membership of the Church, that they may be prepared to find and receive new truths both in the Book of Mormon itself and about it; and
that they may also rejoice in the fact that knowledge of truth is inexhaustible, and will forever go on developing.

Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3:503–4, emphasis added. h/t to Matthew Roper, here.

Another puzzling KnoWhy-Abinadi Scourged with Faggots

I was surprised (although by now I shouldn't have been) to see another Mesoamerican mural as the main illustration for BOMC's KnoWhy #96 is "Why Was Abinadi Scourged with Faggots?"

If BOMC was addressing anyone other than fellow Mesoamerican advocates, the question the KnoWhy really should address is this: How did the Nephite culture come up with the same punishment as the Medieval Europeans? I'll propose an answer for that at the end of this post.

I respectfully submit that it seems BOMC is doing everything possible to avoid the Hebrew culture found in the Book of Mormon. This KnoWhy is another lost opportunity.

(My offer to assist with these KnoWhys remains open. For that matter, I've submitted some KnoWhys that BOMC has ignored.)

Why do the Mesoamerican advocates insist on finding Mesoamerica in the text, when the text clearly and explicitly describes a Hebrew culture? An excellent and detailed analysis of The Trial of Abinadi, online here, explains the Hebrew origins and context of the legal proceedings. Why not look first for Hebrew explanations and interpretations instead of trying to find a Mesoamerican connection?

____________________

The KnoWhy question--"Why Was Abinadi Scourged with Faggots?"--relates to the burning of Abinadi. (Ironically, the KnoWhy never answers the question of why Abinadi was burned, which was because of his supposed blasphemy. Instead, we have a discussion of how the passage might be a correspondence to Mesoamerican practices. The real question answered here is, "How can we see Mesoamerica in Abinadi's punishment?)

Here's what the KnoWhy says:

Although for most modern readers this has evoked images of the prophet burning at the stake, the actual description of the process never mentions Abinadi being tied to a stake. Instead, it curiously describes Abinadi as being “scourged … with faggots,” meaning bundles of burning sticks,1 until “the flames began to scorch him” (Mosiah 17:13–14). He not only suffered death by fire, but he suffered “the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:15, 18, emphasis added). 

Readers have good reason to visualize a burning at the stake; the KnoWhy discussion inexplicably omits the following phrase from verse 13: "they took him and bound him." To what would they bind him if not a stake? If they merely tied him up, he'd have to be restrained by men holding him, but then they would be burned along with him. Two of the illustrations in the KnoWhy depict Abinadi bound to a stake because it's difficult to imagine another scenario that fits the text.
________________

Next, the KnoWhy reads:

The mention of being “scourged,” meaning beaten, flogged, or whipped, is curious in this context. In a paper published in 1991, Robert J. Matthews explained, “This passage seems to say that Abinadi’s tormentors took burning torches and poked him with these, burning his skin until he died.”2 The oddity of this practice has led Royal Skousen to suggest that it may be a transcription error, and the text should be amended to read “scorched his skin with faggots” instead.3

I agree the term scourged here is curious, especially when we realize that the term "scourged" was used previously in the text, including twice in Mosiah. One passage is from Abinadi's own speech.

Mosiah 3:9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

Mosiah 15:5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

These prior uses give credence to Royal Skousen's suggestion; i.e., Oliver heard scourged, a good Biblical term, several times and may have heard it when Joseph actually said scorched here verse 13. The very next verse, 14, says "when the flames began to scorch him."

But let's say Oliver recorded the word correctly. The prior use of scourge also makes it unlikely that a different--and unique--definition of the term would apply to verse 13. Nowhere else does "scourge" mean "poke." One Mesoamerican mural in the KnoWhy shows "men beating a youth with firebrands," although the youth is not bound and does not die. The two other illustrations show Abinadi being struck with burning sticks, but they also show smoke coming up from below him, which is how people are burned at the stake. I suppose it's theoretically possible to burn someone to death by hitting him with burning sticks, but bodies don't combust easily. You're not going to catch on fire if you put your finger over a flame--or if someone hits you with a burning stick. That's why you need to use combustible material, such as gasoline (or a pile of wood underneath) if you want to burn someone to death.

The term scourge does have a more general connotation, however--the very connotation used elsewhere in the text. Scourge can mean "cause great suffering to," a synonym for afflict, torment, torture, etc. Nephi was told the Lamanites would "be a scourge unto thy seed." (1 Ne. 2:24, 2 Ne. 5:25) This didn't mean they would whip or beat (or poke) his people, but that they would be a cause of great suffering, torture, or torment.

If King Noah's men bound Abinadi to a stake, surrounded him (or covered him) with kindling (faggots), and lit them on fire, they would have scourged, or tortured, his skin this way. There is no need to invent a new definition--poke--or pose an impractical method--hitting with burning sticks--to understand the text.

Verse 14 specifies it was the flames that began to scorch him, not burning sticks hitting his body. "And now when the flames began to scorch him, he cried unto them..." This is a good description of how a burning at the stake occurs. First, the wood is lit. Smoke rises, then flames grow and eventually begin to scorch the victim. The text is more troublesome if the men were beating him with burning faggots, because the very first strike would scorch him. It wouldn't make sense to say the flames began to scorch him if Abinadi cried out as soon as the first man hit him with burning sticks.

Consequently, there is no need (or justification) for adjusting the text to fit a Mesoamerican practice. Instead, the text supports the idea that Abindai faced a standard heresy trial, followed by the standard punishment for unrepentant heretics.

______________________

Although scholars have long looked at the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to understand Book of Mormon terms, more recently we have looked at the Oxford English Dictionary. There, the definition of faggot includes this:

2.a. With special reference to the practice of burning heretics alive, esp. in phrase fire and faggot; to fry a faggot, to be burnt alive; also, to bear, carry a faggot, as those did who renounced heresy.  Hence fig. the punishment itself.

The practice of burning heretics has a long history. In fact, this month (May) is the 602nd anniversary of the "Fire and Faggot Parliament" in England that enacted the "Suppression of Heresy Act." This was aimed directly at followers of John Wycliffe, who had produced a Bible in English. [In 1428, Wycliffe's remains were exhumed and burned.] There are many historical references, but for simplicity, I'll quote Wikipedia:

It is named for passing the Suppression of Heresy Act, which called for burning the Lollards with bundles of sticks ("faggots").

that whoever should read the Scriptures in English (which was then called Wicliffe's Learning) should forfeit land, cattle, goods, and life, and be condemned as heretics to God, enemies to the crown, and traitors to the kingdom; that they should not have the benefit of any sanctuary, though this was a privilege then granted to the most notorious malefactors; and that, if they continued obstinate, or relapsed after pardon, they should first be hanged for treason against the king, and then burned for heresy against God.

Under this Act, the body was burned after it was hung, but in other cases, people were burned alive. Mary 1 had hundreds of Protestants burned at the stake, for example. Sometimes the faggots were placed below the victim; other times the victim was covered up with them before they were ignited.

One rationale for burning heretics was to model the flames of hell--a motif also found in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:38; 3:27). Another rationale was to purify the soul of the offender.

[For a list of people burned as heretics, see here. For more background on the English practice, see here. For a discussion of the "benefits" of burning heretics, see here.]

King Noah accused Abinadi of heresy. Following the standard procedure for heresy charges, the King gave him a last chance.

and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people. (Mosiah 17:8).

Abindai refused to "recall the words" he had spoken, knowing he would "suffer even until death." The text doesn't get into detail about the manner of death at this point, but I infer this is because everyone knows how heretics are killed: i.e., burned at the stake. There's no reason to stumble over the term scourge in verse 13; as shown above, it's a good synonym for torture, and the passage is easily understood with this background.
_______________________

Now, back to the real question: How did the Nephite culture come up with the same punishment as the Medieval Europeans?

The answer is, death by burning has a long history in antiquity. Hammurabi's code in ancient Babylon provided for death by burning for certain crimes. The ancient Egyptians and Assyrians used the punishment well before Lehi left Jerusalem.

Even the Old Testament refers to the punishment. In Genesis 38, Judah ordered Tamar to be burned for becoming pregnant while a widow. He released her when she proved he was the father. In the Book of Jubilees, Chapter 20, Abraham instructs that "if any woman or maid commits fornication amongst you, burn her with fire."

Blasphemy and apostasy have long been analogized to infidelity, so it should not be surprising that a variation of Hebrew culture would punish both the same way.

Biblical scholars could examine this issue in more detail, but at least we can see a plausible Hebrew-based explanation for the heresy trial and sentence in Abinadi's case.

While it's interesting that Mayan, Aztec, and North American tribes apparently executed people by burning, that doesn't answer the real questions raised by the text; i.e., why would Nephites burn people for heresy? Is there a Hebrew origin for this Nephite mode of execution?

In fact, it may turn out that the practices in the Americas originated with the Nephites--or at least, the King Noah version of the Nephites.
__________________

Brother Welch's article on The Trial of Abinadi, which I mentioned at the outset, includes an important discussion of the execution. Go to this link and search for "Execution." He writes, "Although a few recorded cases of actual burnings at the stake exist in late antiquity,¹⁶⁸ nothing in the Book of Mormon record indicates that Abinadi was burned while tied to a stake. Instead, it appears that Noah’s priests tailored an unprecedented mode of execution for Abinadi alone that mirrored the evil that Abinadi had said would befall, and did indeed befall, King Noah. This unique and extraordinary punishment conformed with the talionic concepts of justice in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East, where the punishments were individually designed in unusual cases to suit the crime."

I agree that we have but few ancient accounts of burning at the stake, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean this form of execution was rare. Certainly it was known anciently, and therefore could have been part of the cultural knowledge brought to the New World by Lehi's people.

I don't think the text requires that Abinadi's mode of execution was unprecedented, either. Instead, it was the pretext for the execution that was unprecedented. Alma 25:11 observes that "Abinadi was the first that suffered death by fire because of his belief in God," a qualifier that suggests others suffered death by fire for other reasons. Abinadi seemed to know what his fate would be when he refused to recall his words. He knew he would "suffer even unto death." Nothing in the text states or implies that the priests deliberated about the mode of execution, or that this fate was unexpected, surprising, or unprecedented. They simply executed the sentence in the normal way; i.e., blasphemers were burned. The brevity of the description in verse 13 corroborates this interpretation; i.e., readers are assumed to know what happens to blasphemers. Had this been an unprecedented mode of execution, especially one customized for Abinadi, we would expect a more detailed description of what happened.

All in all, the text provides a definite Hebrew context for the trial and execution of Abinadi. Rather than acknowledge and expand on this, the KnoWhy contorts the text to match Mesoamerican murals. While that might be comforting to believers in the Mesoamerican theory, I don't think it's helpful or persuasive to those who don't already accept the Mesoamerican theory--or for those coming to the text for the first time without a background of indoctrination into Mesoamerican ideology.

In the future, can we have KnoWhys that are not intended primarily to confirm the Mesoamerican theory?

____________________

[Note: The burning of women, children, and scriptures in Alma 14 also has parallels to British law, which once required that women be burned for treason, while men were hanged, drawn and quartered. Blackstone explained the rationale: "For as the decency due to sex forbids the exposing and public mangling of their bodies, their sentence (which is to the full as terrible to sensation as the other) is to be drawn to the gallows and there be burned alive."]

A Confession of Liberal Intolerance

Nicholas Kristof wrote an thoughtful article titled "A Confession of Liberal Intolerance" that has been making the rounds. You can see it in the NY Times here.

I think he was responding to the Wall St. Journal, which has recently published several pieces along these lines, including "Campus Unicorns" which I discussed in a previous post.

Kristof's point is that universities believe in all kinds of diversity except intellectual. They discriminate against conservatives. He writes, "We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us."

Graphic from the NYTimes, showing the rarity of a
conservative on campus (red). At BYU/CES,
you won't find even a single advocate for a
Book of Mormon geography other than Mesoamerica.

The comparison between campus liberals and Mesoamerican proponents at BYU/CES is nearly perfect--except there are more conservatives on major university campuses than there are non-Mesoamerican proponents at BYU/CES.
_______________

A good case in point is what Kristof wrote about his Facebook comment:

"I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

"To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion."
_________________

This is exactly the attitude of the citation cartel toward those who believe in the North American setting for the Book of Mormon. Just read the articles on BMAF, FARMS, FAIRMORMON, THE INTERPRETER, etc., most of which are available now on BOMC. For even more fun, read the comments.

What makes this all the more inexcusable is that the Church has an official policy of neutrality on this issue--a policy expressly disavowed by the citation cartel, who not only advocate a Mesoamerican setting, but refuse to publish any alternative viewpoints (let alone anything critical of their biases).

As Kristof writes, "When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose."

The indoctrination into Mesoamerican ideology is inevitable--and pervasive. Kristof recognizes how similar bias has infiltrated the testing process: "This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer."

We have professors at BYU who still promote the Mesoamerican theory as if it's the only way to interpret and understand the text. We have scholars at the Maxwell Institute who insist on the same exclusive viewpoint. We have decades of Church manuals and media that are heavily influenced by the Mesoamerican ideology to the exclusion of alternatives. We have dozens of books and articles by LDS scholars that take the Mesoamerican setting for granted. All of these ignore or denigrate what Oliver Cowdery said about Cumorah and what Joseph Smith said on the topic.

Kristof quotes Jonathan Haidt, who is promoting ideological diversity on campuses. “Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”

It's been happening in the Church since the 1980s.

_________________

Book of Mormon Central still has the potential to recognize actual neutrality on the geography/historicity question, but so far that potential lies dormant. Instead, they have merged with BMAF, an avowedly pro-Mesoamerian group who is anti-anything that is not Mesoamerica. There is not a single non-Mesoamerican link on BOMC's web page.

It's fascinating that Nick Kristof at the NYTimes is more open-minded than BYU/CES and even BOMC.

BOMC KnoWhy misses another opportunity

Vitis riparia, one of several indigenous
grapes of North America

As I've said many times, I like BOMC and the work they do. However, their Mesoamerican lenses continue to blind them to some obvious points. All I ask is that they give readers information about the North American setting as an optional alternative to Mesoamerica.

I don't have time to look at every one of the KnoWhys posted by Book of Mormon Central, but I'll try to point out the ones where BOMC misses the biggest opportunities to offer readers some important information.

On April 28, they posted a KnoWhy about wine, here. "Why Does The Book Of Mormon Mention Wine, Vineyards, And Wine-Presses?"

It's a good question, and the answer is easy in the North American setting. Grapes are indigenous to North America, particularly the Eastern U.S. They were part of the diet of pre-Columbian Native Americans there.

By contrast, there are no indigenous grapes in Mesoamerica. Consequently, BOMC suggests the Book of Mormon is referring to "wine" made from bananas, pineapples, and agave. How's that for an answer?
____________________

Currently, the BOMC staff consists exclusively of Mesoamerican advocates who see everything through Mesoamerican lenses. They can't unsee Mesoamerica. They only allow Mesoamerican input, and everything they publish is intended to support their unilateral perspective. So long as this is the case, the effort at BOMC is wasted on anyone who is not already wearing Mesoamerican lenses.

Look at this wine issue from the perspective of a non-member, an LDS person who questions the Mesoamerican setting, or someone who already believes an alternative to Mesoamerica. What are the chances you are going to accept an answer that the "wine" in the Book of Mormon was made from bananas, pineapples, and agave because there were no grapes anciently in Mesoamerica?

The chances are low to zero.

Especially when you know the truth about native grapes. Google tells you all you need to know. For example, indigenous grapes from the Midwestern U.S. saved the wine industry in Europe. Europe has one variety of wine-producing grape, but North America has six.

The references to wine in the Book of Mormon text make perfect sense in North America.

To force the text into Mesoamerica, you have to come up with convoluted explanations.

____________________

Because they insist on forcing the text into Mesoamerica, the BOMC KnoWhy is schizophrenic. First, they acknowledge the Hebrew background of the Nephites (language, Law of Moses, etc.) but then they impose a Mesoamerican interpretation on the plain words. Look:

"Because there is a wide variety of different wines, “made from fermented grapes or other fruits,”2 it is impossible to be certain what kind of drink is meant, beyond assuming it’s a fermented fruit juice. [The common definition of the term is a beverage made from grapes, as it's used in the Bible. This isn't really so difficult.] Moreover, the Hebrew word for “vineyard” can mean an oil orchard. So these terms are broader in meaning than modern English readers might think.3 [Surely BOMC is not proposing that "wine" in the Book of Mormon means olive oil, but at least they do recognize the Hebrew influence on the Nephite language. The term "wine" is used throughout the Bible, always in reference to grapes (or pomegranate if you accept the Song of Solomon). Grape wine is also related to the Feast of Tabernacles and is symbolic of the Lord's blood.]

"Alcoholic beverages were made from a variety of fruits in the Americas before Columbus. These include bananas, pineapple, and agave, among others. Natives also used palm sap and tree bark with honey to make alcoholic beverages in pre-Columbian times. All of these were called “wine” by the Spaniards who first mentioned them in their writings. Spanish sources also spoke of “vineyards” of agave plants.4" [Of course, nothing in the Bible suggests this type of alcoholic beverage, but what else can you do if you're insisting on Mesoamerica? Anyone not wearing the Mesoamerican lenses won't buy this. I'll skip the rest of this speculation and get to the conclusion, the inevitable quotation from Brother Sorenson: "Sorenson then concluded, “Thus the Book of Mormon statements about wine could turn out to refer either to that drink in the usual European sense or to alternative Mesoamerican intoxicants that were based on other fruits.”9 [Notice, they exclude the most probable and obvious alternative: wine made from grapes indigenous to the Eastern U.S., right where the land of Nephi is in the North American model.]
____________________

As if the Know part wasn't bad enough, the Why section is even more convoluted. Look:

"[B]eing aware of the different possibilities invites questions perhaps never before considered. [Mainly because most people don't envision Mesoamerica when they read the text, unless they've been indoctrinated for years and never exposed to a simpler, more logical alternative in North America that also happens to fit with what Joseph and Oliver said in the first place.] For example, visualize that sacred moment when the risen Lord asked the disciples to retrieve both bread and wine for the sacremant [sic] (3 Nephi 18:1–3, 8), and then shortly thereafter Lord Himself miraculously provided wine and bread for a second performance of that sacred ritual (3 Nephi 20:5–8). Was the miraculous wine from the Savior the same variety of wine the disciples brought? If not, why not?

"The deep red wine that comes from grapes strongly symbolizes the blood of Jesus Christ in the administration of the sacrament. image via oneclimbs.com

"Although speculative, one possible answer is that perhaps the available native wine did not strongly enough symbolize the blood of Christ.10 [Not only speculative, but contrary to Hebrew experience, terminology, and practice. Before Christ came, the Nephites taught about the "blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11; 1 Ne. 12:10). Under the law of Moses, wine was consumed by the Priests and at feasts. Would drinking banana wine help them look forward unto Christ?] While accepting the disciples' humble offer the first time, for the second occasion Christ may have chosen to miraculously produce traditional red wine from the Old World in order to more strongly convey to them His important teaching, “he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled” (3 Nephi 20:8). [Or, given the destruction, maybe they just ran out after the first sacrament?]

"This could have provided a powerful visual for Nephites accustomed to drinking yellowish colored wines. Even if this is not the case, being aware of the different possible types of wine allows readers to better visualize Book of Mormon life. [How does it help people "better visualize" when you leave them with such uncertainty and confusion? Put this in the North American context and you have wine made of grapes, just as anyone reading the text would expect, given the Hebrew background and terminology.] This is especially insightful with wine, since it is so frequently mentioned within the text of the Book of Mormon.
_____________________

BTW, the video is even more unbelievable and could have been fixed so easily.
______________________

I have no problem with BOMC presenting this convoluted Mesoamerican spin, but please also give people a concurrent alternative based on the North American setting. It's so much easier to understand.

Accounting for all the evidence, including Cumorah

Mark Allen Wright offered what I consider the best effort by a Mesoamerican advocate to account for all the evidence with his excellent article "Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography." However, in my view, Brother Wright erred on his analysis of Cumorah and got the geography backward. We should embrace the hinterland concept, but I think a North American Core and a Mesoamerican Periphery fits all the evidence.

Here's how Brother Wright addresses Cumorah: "If any specific Book of Mormon site is known for sure, it must be the Hill Cumorah, right? We know that Moroni buried the plates in Cumorah anciently and that Joseph Smith dug them up there. Or do we? To be clear, Moroni never says that he buried the plates in the Hill Cumorah, and there are no firsthand accounts indicating that Joseph Smith ever referred to the hill in New York by the name Cumorah. In fact, a careful reading of Mormon 6:6 makes it clear that all of the Nephite records were buried in Cumorah except the abridgment that would become the Book of Mormon."

This is the Mormon's Cumorah vs Moroni's Cumorah argument that David Palmer and John Clark relied on to conclude that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites could not have taken place in New York, as I've discussed elsewhere.

Comments to Brother Wright's article point out some of the problems, such as Theodore Brandley's comment here: "Both Book of Mormon civilizations ended at Cumorah. All of the documentary evidence indicates that was it was Moroni who stated that Cumorah was the ancient name of the hill in New York. Your suggestion that Mormon 6:6 indicates that the plates of Mormon could not have been buried in ancient Cumorah is also false reasoning. The fact that Mormon gave these plates to Moroni does not preclude Moroni from burying them in the same hill about 35 years later." Brother Brandley also cites the "six documentary sources that confirm it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith, prior to the translation of the Gold Plates, that the hill in Palmyra was anciently known as Cumorah."

Nowhere does Brother Wright mention, let alone address, Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII. Nor do any of the comments to the article.

Hopefully by now everyone reading this blog knows that Letter VII unequivocally states, as a "fact," that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York. Readers also know that Joseph Smith helped Oliver Cowdery write the letters, that Joseph had his scribes copy them into his journal as part of his history, and that Letter VII was published with the other in the Messenger and Advocate, the Times and Seasons, the Gospel Reflector, and in a stand-alone pamphlet in 1844.

IOW, during Joseph's lifetime, it was universally accepted, as a fact, that the Hill Cumorah--both Mormon's and Moroni's--was in New York. It was in his context that Joseph wrote D&C 128: "Glad tidings from Cumorah!"

No student of the Book of Mormon should ignore Letter VII. I hope every member of the Church today reads it, as they did in Kirtland and Nauvoo when Joseph was alive.

___________________________

I began my analysis of Book of Mormon geography decades ago as a seminary student while living in Germany. Then I went to BYU and learned the Mesoamerican theory in more detail. For decades, I accepted it by default, but the two-Cumorah theory on which it depends never felt right. I didn't realize until much later that Joseph Fielding Smith had specifically addressed that theory in the 1930s, stating that "because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith of the Book of Mormon."

No truer words about this topic have ever been written. The evidence of that is all around us today.

President Smith went on to write, "It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located [in New York] as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case."

Among other things, he cited Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII and notes that the letters "were written at the Prophet's request and under his personal supervision." He points out that Letter VII was published in the Messenger and Advocate and the Times and Seasons. Apparently President Smith didn't know that Joseph had also instructed his scribes to copy the letters into his journal (something I didn't know until I searched in the Joseph Smith Papers) and had given Benjamin Winchester express permission to publish them in the Gospel Reflector.

The more we learn, the more we realize President Smith was right all along.
_________________________

How the citation cartel handles Cumorah

To resolve the issue of Book of Mormon geography and reach a consensus, it's important to reach a consensus about the Hill Cumorah in New York, as described by Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII.

I think there is zero chance for a consensus until everyone involved deals with Letter VII. If people want to reject Letter VII, that's fine. But let's deal with it directly.

The citation cartel, so far, has completely ignored it. Even knowing President Smith cited it, the citation cartel ignored it when they discussed Cumorah here, and instead promoted a compound hearsay statement from 50 years ago to disregard President Smith's analysis.

Those who have read the book on Letter VII, available here and online here, know that Joseph Fielding Smith specifically rejected the two-Cumorah theory on which the Mesoamerican theory depends. (This is the theory that the hill in New York was merely where Joseph found the plates, and not the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites.)

Here is a summary of how the issue has been addressed over the years. (The detail is on another blog for those interested. I've edited that post for this blog.)

In 1938, as Church Historian and a 28-year member of the Twelve, Joseph Fielding Smith writes an extensive analysis rejecting the two Cumorah theory and declaring that it has led members of the Church to "become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith of the Book of Mormon."

In 1956, now as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Smith releases Doctrines of Salvation, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, that includes the republication of his analysis rejecting the two-Cumorah theory.

In 2010, the Citation Cartel claims that President Smith told Sidney Sperry he could write whatever he wanted, including the two-Cumorah theory, and from that they conclude "It seems clear, then, that Elder (later President) Smith did not regard his views as the product of revelation, nor did he regard it as illegitimate to have a different view of the matter."

What is the basis for this rejection of what President Smith wrote?

"Recollection of John Fugal of Orem, Utah, to Matthew Roper, 15 May 2010. Fugal was a student in a BYU Book of Mormon class where Sperry recounted the experience."

I am not making this up. All the citations are listed here, with online links.

To reject Joseph Fielding Smith's analysis, the citation cartel publishes what Brother Roper says Brother Fugal told him that Brother Sperry said President Smith told him sometime in the 1960s.

You pick which side has more credibility.

Better, follow President Smith's analysis and add more recent discoveries from the Joseph Smith papers, then contrast that with the multiple layers of hearsay that the citation cartel relies upon.

(BTW, isn't it obvious to any Latter-day Saint familiar with Article of Faith 11 that Joseph Fielding Smith was merely recognizing Brother Sperry's own free agency and academic freedom? Nothing in this compound--and self-serving--hearsay recollection from 50 years ago implies that President Smith changed his mind on this topic. If anything, his analysis has become more relevant thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers.)