Casey Griffiths fumbles on Cumorah

Casey Griffiths appeared on the Hello Saints podcast with Pastor Jeff to answer questions about early Church history. This was an outstanding chance for Casey to clarify some of the issues that trouble people about the Book of Mormon. The podcast has had around 43,000 views.

Casey is an awesome guy, an outstanding BYU professor and an articulate social media influencer.

In this case, however, Pastor Jeff asked Casey some basic questions and Casey did not correct some of Pastor Jeff's misperceptions and omitted relevant evidence about Cumorah, which is why we are discussing it here on the Letter VII blog. 

Hopefully in the future Casey will refer to authentic historical sources instead of modern theories that ignore or reject those sources.

Here's the link to the video, which is titled "Could He Have Been Lying? Investigating Joseph Smith's Claims."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VGBfswNzf4

The original transcript is in blue, my comments in red, original 3rd party quotations in green.

26:02 Jeff - First vision is in 1820 then 1823 when he's first visited by Moroni....

27:32  Casey - And the angel shares the same message but then tells him go tell your father.... He [Joseph] goes and talks to his father and his father again to his credit says I think this is of God. 

This explanation is fine but the next part makes more sense when we explain that Joseph's mother Lucy Mack Smith reported how Joseph described that first visit, when Moroni told him "the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars ​of cement​"

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41

And it's at that moment like the day after that Joseph Smith goes to the hill Cumorah which I know you're going to go there in a minute but geographically is about a mile away from where the Smiths are living. So he goes there and that is the first time that he locates and sees the plates but he's told that he cannot obtain them.

Here Casey correctly refers to the Hill Cumorah, although it is actually about three miles away as Moroni told Joseph that first night. Casey anticipates that Jeff will "go there" meaning will ask about Cumorah, and eventually Jeff does.

47:25 Casey - So for four years he's being instructed.

His mom also says that the year before he got the plates he went to the hill as regularly scheduled but he was gone for a really long time. Came home and looked exhausted and his dad ran up and said where have you been? Like we were worried about you. And Joseph turns to him and says I've received the most severe chastisement of my life. And his dad gets defensive like well who did this to you? I want to talk to them. And Joseph gets a big smile on his face and says it was the angel. like he told me I need to get my act together so that I can get the record. 

Kudos to Casey for mentioning this episode, although he misspoke because this event did not occur during Joseph's regular visit to the Hill Cumorah in September. Instead, this happened in early 1827 when Joseph was returning home from Manchester.

This is another opportunity to mention Cumorah, but Casey did not do so. Lucy quoted Joseph saying "as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord..."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111

By identifying the hill as Cumorah, Joseph did not need to tell his parents where he met the angel because the entire family knew where Cumorah was. 

Unfortunately the version of this account in the Saints book omits the reference to Cumorah, but we can all read it in the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP). So far in this interview, we have two specific historical sources that explain why the hill is called Cumorah. Casey omitted both of them, which leads to some of the confusion Jeff expresses later in the interview.

It seems highly unlikely that Casey is unfamiliar with these references. We can only speculate why he omitted them here, but hopefully in the future Casey will relate the complete historical record.

1:00:40 So at the end of the school year in which was April of 1829, okay, Oliver Cowdry travels from Palmyra to Pennsylvania and he gets there and he and Joseph must have clicked because they start translating and the text of the Book of Mormon as we know it is translated in April, May, and June of 1829. Three months.

David Whitmer says it took eight months, which Joseph corroborated when he explained he resumed translating in the fall of 1828 when the angel returned the plates and the Urim and Thummim. He said Emma acted as scribe, but the process was slow because Emma had other work to do. Documentary evidence suggests Emma recorded all or most of the Book of Mosiah, so that when Oliver began writing, they started in Alma.

This is a minor discrepancy, but because it is easy to corroborate David Whitmer's statement, people should be aware of this chronology.

The next excerpt is where Jeff brings up Cumorah.

1:04 Jeff - So, obviously all of this being, maybe I'll just put it from my standpoint, seemingly far-fetched. Okay. 

Casey - Okay.

Jeff - particularly the claims of the gold plates and the whole idea that they were buried in a hill Cumorah in Mormon chapters 6 7 8, something like that, a battle taking place at the Hill Cumorah. I don't know if I'm in the right neighborhood there, the claims being, these plates are in this hill Cumorah and they were buried by someone named Moroni. 

Jeff frames this as a question posed by every reader of the Book of Mormon, which is undoubtedly accurate.

And it's this hill that was also the the setting of a an ancient battle where hundreds of thousands of people were killed, soldiers, men, women, children, and fallen there. That's one of the things that I start going back to.

This is one of the main reasons why people reject the Book of Mormon; i.e., a claim of hundreds of thousands of people killed in a battle that left no trace. This is without historical precedent. And yet there are known battles, such as the well-known Battle of Hastings in 1066, where archaeologists have not found evidence even though estimates of the number of people involved ranged from a few thousand to over 100,000.

Archaeologists have found abundant evidence of rudimentary fortifications in western New York, constructed hastily. Heber C. Kimball recorded that when he visited Cumorah in 1832, he could still see the embankments around it.

Right here, Casey should have jumped in and explained that the text does not actually say hundreds of thousand of people died at Cumorah. But he says nothing. Later, he compounds this error.

It's like, okay, this this is some compelling storytelling, but is there evidence? Is there further evidence? For example, do we have, and I know that this is not the first time you've heard this is a common [Casey's laughter] criticism or or question that people would ask.

Is this the Hill Cumorah that we see in the Book of Mormon? If so, why aren't there archaeological evidences of a massive battle where hundreds of thousands of people were killed or, you know, had fallen? Um, pretty much the the rest of the Nephites, like there was only a few people left after this.

Casey - Yeah. The record denotes like 250,000 people being killed at that battle.

There it is. Casey repeats the fantastical claim that 250,000 people were killed in the battle at Cumorah. Jeff's skepticism is justified.

But what does the text actually say?

I have a detailed discussion of this topic here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/cumorah-and-population-numbers.html

For this post, let's look at three basic point.

First, it is obvious that the "ten thousand" referred to in Mormon 6 is not a head count. Maybe it is an approximation, but more likely it is a common designation for a military unit, of which there are other examples around the world throughout history. Thus, a unit called "ten thousand" could consist of only a few thousand, especially after years of warfare.

Second, in AD 330, Mormon's largest enumerated army was 42,000. And this was after gathering the people together.

6 And we marched forth and came to the land of Joshua, which was in the borders west by the seashore. 7 And it came to pass that we did gather in our people as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body....

9 And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of forty and four thousand. And behold, I withstood him with forty and two thousand. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and three hundred and thirty years had passed away. (Mormon 2:6–7, 9)

Fifty-four years later, in the year 384, after a continual retreat from the Lamanites and scenes of blood and carnage, Mormon says they again "gathered in all the remainder of our people," this time "unto the land of Cumorah." (Mormon 6:5) This description of continual war makes it improbable that his army would have grown from 42,000 to 250,000.

Third, the only two groups of "ten thousand" visible from the Hill Cumorah were those of Mormon and Moroni. The others died elsewhere, presumably at various times and places during Mormon's lifetime career in the military. 

Jeff - So, is this the same Hill Cumorah? 

It's easy to answer yes, as Joseph Smith and all of his contemporaries did. Oliver's Letter VII is the most direct, stating it is a fact that the hill in western New York is the hill Cumorah/Ramah as described in the text.

And if not, then the question is, well, if it's not, then how how then could this uneducated farm boy with, you know, however you want to say it, these amazing experiences or maybe some would say a huge imagination or however, uh, translate these plates.

Is it possible that maybe he surrounded himself with educated men like Oliver Cowry or people like that that could kind of help him, you know, articulate or or act as scribes to kind of meld their imaginations together to sort of punctuate this story? How does a latter saint hold all that? Because this really comes down to some significant claims. 

Casey - Yeah.

Jeff - And some of it can be corroborated. Some of the witnesses we talked about, some of it cannot.

What does a latter day saint do with that? And maybe I know there's a lot there that  

Casey - that was a long question.

1:06:31 Jeff - It was a long question and maybe I'll break it into two parts. One, is there evidence that this is the true Cumorah?

And the second one being is it not plausible to say that Joseph was working in concert with other educated men to sort of put this together to put these records together.

Casey - Okay. Okay. So, let me address each one of those. First, it is still a matter of dispute among Latter-day Saints as to whether or not the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York is the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. 

Jeff - Okay.

We see one reason already why Cumorah "is still a matter of dispute." Casey already omitted two references to Cumorah in the specific events he related. When people don't know the historical record about Cumorah, they can be easily confused. But there is no dispute that those two references exist. 

Casey - The first time it's referred to as the Hill Cumorah is 1834, which is well after the record is published. 

We've just seen that, according to the historical record, the first time the hill was referred to as Hill Cumorah was in 1823 during Moroni's initial visit. A second reference was in early 1827. So why would Casey say there was no reference to Hill Cumorah before 1834?

Presumably, Casey is making the standard M2C argument that the identification of the Hill Cumorah was an erroneous afterthought. But he just stated, as facts, that Moroni told Joseph to tell his father about the visit and that Joseph met Moroni at the hill in early 1827 before he got the plates. Those accounts are based on Lucy Mack Smith's journal. There is no reason to censor Cumorah from Lucy's account other than to maintain Cumorah as "a matter of dispute." 

This anomaly pervades Church history content. The Saints book, for example, quotes and/or cites Lucy's history over 100 times, but it always censors Cumorah from her account. Here, Casey does the same thing.

Jeff - Interesting.

Jeff's response is telling, He likely is fully aware of the way Casey and other Church historians massage the historical record like this to perpetuate confusion about Cumorah.

Casey - The second thing is, and again, Latter-day Saints don't agree with each other on this. The people that think it was the Hill Cumorah, the original Hill Cumorah from the book, generally believe that the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon were elsewhere um in the American continent. But that the Book of Mormon describes the final battle as kind of a retreat where they're falling back and falling back and falling back and falling back and eventually the battle takes place at Cumorah. 

Casey refers to the "people that think it was the Hill Cumorah," which is an odd way to frame the question. A more accurate and useful description would be the "people who still believe what Joseph and Oliver said about the Hill Cumorah."

Separately, Casey's response is so vague we cannot tell to whom he refers. We can't tell if he is referring to Orson Pratt's hemispheric model, to those who focus on Central America but also retain the New York Cumorah, or to those who think the Book of Mormon civilizations were located in what is now the midwestern United States (the so-called Heartlanders). 

There's another school of thought that has said, well, let's look at the internal descriptions of the civilizations in the Book of Mormon and try and match that to what we know existed in the Americas. And those people tend to favor an explanation that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America.

This is a misleading framing as well. There are many different interpretations of the text that lead people to various sites not only in Central America, but also in Baja, Peru, Panama, and even other parts of the world.

The fundamental distinction between the two camps is not their interpretation of the geographical passages in the text (because everyone has a different interpretation). The distinction is whether they accept or reject what Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and their successors believe(d). 

1:07:48

And that the Hill Cumorah or the hill in New York is named after a Hill Cumorah down there. That's called the Two Cumorahs theory.

This is a good summary of the fundamental differences between the two groups.

Okay? And I'm not going to endorse either one because... 

We can't expect Casey to endorse either one because he's in an academic position at BYU and he needs to follow the neutrality position of the Church. But as a professor of Church history, he can and he should teach the historical record, which he declined to do here with Pastor Jeff. 

This is the fundamental problem with the Cumorah issue. Professors such as Casey simply refuse to teach students the historical record about Cumorah. Or they dismiss it by saying there were no references prior to 1834, without also observing that there are no contemporaneous records of any of the events of the Restoration prior to 1829. And even then, there are no records of the First Vision, Moroni's visit, etc. Everything was related retrospectively. So to say Cumorah is a matter of dispute because there is no mention of Cumorah before 1834 is a red herring.  

Jeff - that's, you know, what… that's how many people try to reconcile 

Casey - that's the discourse, right? 

Uh the people that believed that the Book of Mormon primarily took place in Central America will say the geographic descriptions in the Book of Mormon match that region better. The civilizational descriptions match that region better.

Everyone with a theory of geography thinks their theory matches the text better.

And according to the book's own chronology, the final battle takes place and then Moroni has about 36 years before he deposits the record. I think the final battle is in AD 385 and he deposits the record in AD 421. So he has 36 years... 

Jeff - and he's on the run.

Casey - And he's on the run. He mentions that in his record. 

Moroni never says he's "on the run." Instead, he explained he would write and hide the records, and after that it doesn't matter where he goes.

3. And my father also was killed by them, and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father. And whether they will slay me, I know not.

4 Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not.

5 Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not. (Mormon 8:3–5)

The next thing we see is Moroni abridges the record of the Jaredites. To do so, he had to have access to the record of the Jaredites, which meant he was still at Cumorah. He doesn't say when he finished abridging that record, but he is still in hiding. He says he "wanders" without stating or implying he is on a transcontinental journey.

1 Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

2 For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ.

3 And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life. (Moroni 1:1–3)

Finally, in Moroni 10, he explains he is finishing his account in AD 421. 

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.  

2 And I seal up these records... (Moroni 10:1-2)

Everything Moroni writes is compatible with his statement to Joseph Smith that the history was "written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home near Palmyra. 

So not only does Moroni never state or imply that he made a transcontinental journey to deposit the plates that were written in Central America, the historical record shows that Moroni told Joseph he and his father wrote the record "not far from" Joseph's home in western New York. 

So, is there enough time for him to make it from Central America to uh New York? Sure. 

This is a meaningless statement. Theoretically, Moroni could have voyaged around the world multiple times. But we have Moroni on the record saying the record was written and deposited near Palmyra and that the hill Cumorah was 3 miles from Joseph's home. Only by ignoring (or rejecting) the historical record can we engage in speculation about Cumorah in Central America, Baja, Panama, etc.

Jeff - Yes.

Casey -  If the Book of Mormon took place in North America, is there enough time for him to make it from a place like St. Louis? Because I've had some people say they think that, uh, areas around Missouri or Illinois are where the Book of Mormon took place? There's more than enough time for him to get to the Hill Cumorah there, too.

This is axiomatic, but it is a bit of a red herring because the issue is where was the record written, not where was it finally deposited. Everyone agrees it was deposited in New York.

Um, on a basic level, um, as Christians, [laughter] we all believe in fantastic stories, right? 

Jeff - We do. 

Casey - It is fantastic to believe that a man born in a village in an obscure region of the world was the son of God and that he laid down his life and picked it up. Yeah.

Um we would say that this story is fantastic. We acknowledge that. But the evidence is there.

Um and a lot of people make these claims about well this is just too fantastic a story to believe without actually interacting with the record itself. 

Jeff - Sure.

_____

Recall that this podcast is titled "Could He Have Been Lying? Investigating Joseph Smith's Claims."

Pastor Jeff highlighted the Cumorah problem. Instead of affirming what Joseph and Oliver always said about Cumorah, Casey hedged and said Latter-day Saints disagree about whether Joseph and Oliver told the truth.

If, according to Casey, Latter-day Saints cannot agree that Joseph was not lying, we cammpt expect Jeff and his viewers to conclude Joseph (and Oliver) told the truth.

Fixing Cumorah, one step at a time

We are always happy to see improvements in the historic sites and visitors centers. A good example now is the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center.

For many years, the Visitors Center at Temple Square taught visitors that there were "two Cumorahs." They showed Mormon's Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), which they depicted as being in Mexico in a room covered with Mayan glyphs.

And down the hall they showed Moroni's Cumorah in New York.

Millions of visitors saw this display, including impressionable kids.

This was a true travesty. It did not merely misrepresent the scriptures and the historical record, but it repudiated the express teachings of the prophets.

To compound the error, the display of "Moroni's hill" showed Moroni putting the plates in his stone box, along with the sword of Laban and the Liahona. They duplicated this part of the exhibit even at the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center!

Why would they show Moroni putting the sword and Liahona in the box?

This was the only way the M2Cers could explain D&C 17:1. Because they insisted that the "real" Cumorah was in Mexico, M2C requires that the sword of Laban and the Liahona be in the stone box.

Among others, Keith Erekson, as director of the Church History Library, explicitly taught this to visitors. He even memorialized his "sword in the box" theory in his book, Real vs. Rumor.

To support his "sword in the box" theory, Erekson did not cite (or even mention) what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said in their detailed descriptions and explanations of Moroni's stone box. Nir did he cite what their contemporaries said at the time.

Instead he reached out to an 1886 statement by Joseph's sister Katherine (which he misspelled because he apparently didn't even read the original source). Katherine did not even mention the stone box.

We've discussed this in detail here: 

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/real-vs-rumor-keith-ereksons-failed.html

Fortunately, that M2C display was removed both at Temple Square and at the Hill Cumorah.

Today, the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center explains the accurate historical record about the stone box.

There are no M2C exhibits at the current Hill Cumorah Visitors Center.

We can all hope that Keith Erekson will issue a second edition of his book to correct the error, but he probably won't.

Meanwhile, the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center still doesn't explain why it is called the Hill Cumorah. Let's hope that someday, the center will include a display of authentic Church historical sources, including Letter VII, so visitors will know why the hill is called Cumorah.

_____

The historical record is clear, obvious, and straightforward. The first time he visited Joseph Smith in September 1823, Moroni explained that the record was written and deposited not far from Joseph's home in the hill Cumorah. Oliver Cowdery explained that it is a fact that the hill in New York is the same hill called Cumorah/Ramah in the Book of Mormon. 

Tomaten auf den Augen haben

A German saying.

More on Baja: highways "cast up"

The Baja advocates recently gave us a good example of how bias confirmation works. In this case, the Stick of Joseph podcast made a video about "highways" in Baja that supposedly match the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTbk0domTs8

The Baja advocates had an obvious problem in Baja. The rudimentary roads throughout the peninsula are basically ruts through the desert, in some cases cleared of large rocks. 

The Book of Mormon refers to highways in one verse:

And there were many highways cast up, and many roads made, which led from city to city, and from land to land, and from place to place. (3 Nephi 6:8)

How do they reconcile the reality in Baja with this verse?

By employing an innovative interpretation to confirm their bias.

_____

Before reading the transcript, let's review bias confirmation again.

The Baja theory is a good example of multiple working hypotheses, which is great. I encourage everyone to propose new ideas, pending more information.

At the same time, the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding requires us to start with clarity.

In this case, we start with the underlying premise of the Baja theory, which, like M2C, is that Oliver Cowdery lied about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. 

We can all read Letter VII, as well as Letter IV, Lucy Mack Smith's history, Parley P. Pratt's account, David Whitmer's account, Brigham Young's account, and all the rest. As well as D&C 128:20.

The FAITH model starts with "Facts." 

The existence of these sources are facts that everyone who knows about them accepts as authentic. Most Latter-day Saints don't know about them because the popular scholars and those who promote them avoid these sources. 

As we will see in the video below.

The second step in the FAITH model is "Assumptions."

For these step, we make assumptions about the historical facts. We can assume either that 

(i) Oliver et al told the truth, or 

(ii) Oliver et al did not tell the truth.

The Baja advocates, like the M2C advocates, assume that Oliver did not tell the truth. Instead, they claim all of these sources related a false narrative, and that Joseph Smith himself adopted this false narrative.

Which is why we have this divergence, right from the outset.

_____

Here's the transcript.

2.5 min.

Hayden Paul: But there is one thing I have to point out. You know, in that scripture, it talks about uh the roads being cast up.

Rosenvall: Yeah.

Right. And I've always thought of it this way. That that means taking rocks and putting them on top. So the road is elevated and that's not what we're seeing here. What we're seeing is rocks cleared off to the side and kind of almost creating a barrier. 

That's right.

To go on the road. So explain where does that come from?

Where does that come from?

Cuz it doesn't seem to match.

Yeah. So our normal modern day lens is that casting up on top of each other.

Biblically, especially in Isaiah, there's a couple of references that talk about this, but what it meant is to remove obstacles, to put the stones to the side that you can create. They use the word standard. This is where you can follow to get somewhere. In fact, they used it spiritually. Remove the sins from your life.

Here's this. Here's the path to get back to God. So, it's clearly removing, not adding.

What are these references? Cuz we got to fact check here. So, in Isaiah, there's a couple. There's one in Isaiah 62:10.

Pull, let me pull that up. Okay, I've got it. Verse 10, it says, "Go through, go through the gates. Prepare ye the way of the people. Cast up. Cast up the highway, gather out the stones, lift up a standard for the people.

Okay. All right. I'm seeing that. Yeah.

So, to cast up the highway means lift off the stones. That's right. Okay. What's the next one?

57:14. Isaiah 57:14. It says, "And shall say, cast ye up." Cast ye up. Prepare the way. Take up the stumbling block out of the way of my people. So, right there, it's even more clear. It's saying, "Cast up. Cast up. remove the stumbling block from the people, make the path clear. And what's so curious, oh, that's way different.

Zoom out and we'll splice in some drone footage here, but you zoom out and basically what you see is just rocks lining these roads for miles and miles and miles. And obviously today we see a lot of rain wash through these through these ancient roads. But it doesn't take away the fact that for miles you just see these straight roads cast up, meaning all the rocks. aside.

So now, to make Baja confirm their bias, the Rosenvalls have to say "cast up" doesn't mean "build up," which is the literal Hebrew terminology. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/62-10.htm

Anyone reading these verses in Isaiah might think they refer to two-step process. First, build up the road. Second, remove any stones that hinder passage.

I asked AI about it.

In Isaiah 62:10, the text gives us a remarkably vivid, accurate snapshot of exactly how ancient Middle Eastern road crews prepared a highway for a king or a massive caravan.

The verse reads:

"Pass through, pass through the gates! Prepare the way for the people. Build up, build up the highway! Remove the stones. Raise a banner for the nations."

When you unpack the specific phrases used in this verse, it aligns perfectly with the archaeological reality of how dirt and gravel roads were constructed and maintained in the region.

The Three Steps of Ancient Road Building

The verse breaks down the three core tasks required to make a rugged desert track usable for a massive crowd:

1. "Build up, build up the highway!" Ancient roads outside of major cities were rarely dug deep into the earth; instead, they were elevated. Road builders would pile up earth, clay, and gravel to create an embankment (often called a causeway). This achieved two vital engineering goals: it created a relatively flat surface over uneven, dip-filled terrain, and it ensured that during flash floods, water would drain off to the sides rather than washing the road away.

2. "Remove the stones." The terrain of the Levant and broader Middle East is notoriously rocky, littered with limestone and flint boulders. For a smooth journey—especially for people traveling on foot, in sandals, or leading pack animals and wheeled carts—the track had to be meticulously cleared. Workers physically cast aside large rocks to the edges of the path, which often served a dual purpose as crude boundary markers for the road itself. 

3. "Raise a banner for the nations." Because the vast desert and wilderness landscapes could easily disorient travelers, ancient highways used landmarks, stone cairns (piles of rocks), or literal flags and banners at high points. These served as ancient GPS markers, guiding travelers from afar and signaling that they were on the official, safe, and maintained imperial route.

In short, Isaiah 62:10 isn't just using poetic imagery; it is using the literal language of an ancient public works project to describe a path being cleared of all obstacles.

That seems obvious enough, but let's also look at how the Book of Mormon uses the term "cast up."

2 And behold, the city had been rebuilt, and Moroni had stationed an army by the borders of the city, and they had cast up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and the stones of the Lamanites; for behold, they fought with stones and with arrows. (Alma 49:2)

If "cast up" meant "clearing" here, the dirt would not have shielded them from arrows and stones. To the contrary, the ordinary meaning of "cast up" meant piling dirt to create an embankment.

And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch; and they cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers; and thus they did cause the Lamanites to labor until they had encircled the city of Bountiful round about with a strong wall of timbers and earth, to an exceeding height. (Alma 53:4)

We see the same use of the term here. 

(BTW, this is all exactly what the Hopewell civilization did to protect their habitations. And notice the emphasis on timbers and earth instead of stones. The only structure in the text made of stones consisted of defensive walls in Alma 48:8, which is also documented in Ohio.)

Imagine trying to cast up dirt and earth against timbers
in such a rocky, barren terrain as Baja.

when they heard this they cast up their eyes as if to behold from whence the voice came;

(Helaman 5:48)

This is a different context but also connotes looking upward.

23 And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work. (Ether 10:23)

Heaps of earth are created by piling earth high; i.e., casting it up. 

The sole anomaly is the highway passage in 3 Nephi 6:8 where "cast up," according to the Rosenvalls, does not mean to create an embankment but to clear stones. And yet, that anomaly is contradicted even by the Isaiah passages they cite.

Plus, the highway described in 3 Nephi 6:8 fits the Great Hopewell Road, contrary to the tracks in the Baja desert. 

None of this was brought up in the video.

But it should have been.

Reasoning in plainness and simplicity

It is amazing that anyone still debates the setting of the Book of Mormon. The issue is a simple binary; i.e., did Joseph and Oliver tell the truth, or did they not?

People can believe whatever they want. They can choose to believe what they said, or to disbelieve what they said.

If Joseph and Oliver did not tell the truth, does it make any difference what anyone else thinks?

_____

Joseph and Oliver taught the New York Cumorah in plainness and simplicity. 

The principal complaint by the disbelievers is that Joseph did not leave enough of a record to satisfy them. Joseph helped Oliver write Letter VII. Joseph had Letter VII copied into his own history. Joseph had it republished multiple times, including in the Times and Seasons where he also published his letter to the Saints explaining he learned about Cumorah before he even got the plates (D&C 128:20).

But none of that is sufficient if you don't want to believe what they taught.

_____

Speaking of simplicity, the most popular post on my setting blog is titled "Simplicity."

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2016/05/simplicity.html

In that post, we observed that the historical facts are unambiguous and we contrasted two sets of assumptions about those facts:

1. the simple, plain assumptions that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

against 

2. the chain of conspiratorial assumptions M2Cers must make to persuade Latter-day Saints to reject what Joseph and Oliver taught.

The word "simplicity" is used just once in latter-day scripture:

And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity—

(Doctrine and Covenants 133:57)

Plainness and simplicity. 

Together.

Then...

Reasoning in plainness and simplicity.

_____

Paul spoke about plainness of speech:

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (2 Corinthians 3:12)

Nephi spoke about plainness in more detail.

I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.

For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding. (2 Nephi 31:2–3)

And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be. (2 Nephi 32:7)

As plain as word can be...

Or, as Jonathan Edwards put it, "so it is indeed as plain as words can make them."

_____

The Brant Gardner legacy

I've said many times that Brant Gardner is my favorite M2Cer. Not only because he's such a nice guy and a diligent scholar, but because he's so persistent.

Over the years, I've commented on his various writings and podcasts. He recently released another podcast with the usual suspects, all of whom are awesome, faithful Latter-day Saints who are committed to both M2C and SITH. They repeated the same arguments they've been making for decades.

We'll go through the transcript in another post.

But based on the comments, these things are "new" to many viewers. Kind of like the "new" Baja theory that has been around for decades. New generations see all things new.

It's all good. Readers here know how much I encourage multiple working hypotheses. 

But the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, which leads to no more contention, requires us to all focus on clarity. To do so, we can use the FAITH model that starts with Facts and then clearly identifies Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that lead to the final Hypothesis. 

All the points Brant and the others raise in this latest video have been addressed many times in the past, but they won't tell their viewers that.

So with that in mind, let's look at previous posts about Brant's work. Versions of these are in my upcoming book on LDS apologists.

_____

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/03/most-people-would-go-with-heartland.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/05/brant-gardner-m2c-and-occams-razon.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/08/oliver-cowdery-and-brant-gardner.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/04/brant-gardners-heartland-versus.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/brants-part-13.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-heartland-versus-mesoamerica-part-2.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/07/ever-learning-shiz-m2c-etc.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/11/progress-on-geography-issue.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/08/review-of-brant-gardner-traditions-of.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/12/thank-you-brant-gardner.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/03/peer-review-of-brant-gardner-trying-to.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/07/brant-gardner-on-cumorah.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/08/more-on-brant-gardner-who-is-awesome.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2014/12/directions-in-book-of-mormon.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/07/traditions-of-fathers-book-of-mormon-as.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/06/war-of-words-comments.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/08/epic-interview-with-brant-gardner-on.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/10/brant-gardner-objection-to-north.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/05/the-book-of-mormon-translation-puzzle.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/09/how-mesoamericanists-obscure-facts.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/07/interpreter-review-of-mormon-codex.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/01/thank-you-brant-gardner-again.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/04/the-end-of-m2c-part-1.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2025/04/the-end-of-m2c-part-2.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/08/we-are-far-beyond-worrying-about-little.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2015/09/why-mesoamericanists-obscure-facts.html

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/04/m2c-citation-cartel-hanna-seriac-and.html

https://www.lettervii.com/2025/07/ocean-currents-and-settings.html

https://www.lettervii.com/2018/03/david-whitmer-and-cumorah.html

https://www.lettervii.com/2024/12/split-personalities-interpretations-of.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-heartland-versus-mesoamerica-part-2.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2015/10/gardner-reviewing-wunderli.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/dan-and-m2c-blowin-in-wind.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-brant-gardners-review-of-by.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/peer-review-of-brant-gardners-latest.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2015/08/interpreters-review-of-mormons-codex.html

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/04/brant-gardner-part-2-elicits-strange.html

Clarification on the Rosenvall's Baja video

The Stick of Joseph podcast is one of my favorites. I recommend it all the time. The Paul brothers are outstanding interviewers and have interesting guests and topics. They usually present multiple working hypotheses on lots of topics to help readers make informed decisions. 

But sometimes they overlook important points that audiences should be aware of, such as in these videos about the theories of the Rosenvalls that the Book of Mormon took place in Baja California.

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we need to correct an error. In a recent post, about the Baja theory video from the Stick of Joseph podcast, I analyzed the Rosenvall's website that discussed Cumorah.

https://www.lettervii.com/2026/05/cumorah-and-baja.html

I thought the video did not discuss Cumorah. I was wrong.

In a subtle way, they did discuss Cumorah, just not by name.

_____

Before getting to what they said in the video, as I keep repeating, I'm fine with people believing whatever they want. I encourage multiple working hypotheses, pending additional information. And I completely agree with the Rosenvalls that we should all "keep on the fact side."

The "fact side" is the first element in my FAITH model of analysis. We start with Facts, then articulate the various Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories that lead to our respective Hypotheses. This model of analysis allows everyone to clearly distinguish between facts and the other elements that are often presented as facts.

The "fact side" requires clarity and transparency.

Instead, the Rosenvalls (who are great people, faithful Latter-day Saints, sincere, educated, etc.), both in this video and on their website, ignore the facts relating to Cumorah.

_____

At 30:13, Rosenvall alludes to Cumorah without using the term. That's why I missed it before.

"Unfortunately, there's a lot of things that are fiction, things that have been made up, kind of recreated, kind of gotcha kind of stuff. They too can be tested and they become fiction. Here's where our problem is. It's in the middle. It's this in legal terms, it's called conjecture. In other words, you're presenting something that can't be tested or proved. So, for example, a quote from an apostle in 1835 is very interesting, but my problem is how do I go to him and say, "Hey, was this revelation or were you just kind of thinking about it?"

Most viewers have no idea what he is referring to because most viewers have never read Letter VII (Oliver Cowdery's 1835 explanation of Cumorah) and Rosenvall is hardly going to tell them about it. 

Nor did the Paul brothers question him about it. They just let it go as if they agreed.

Instead, Rosenvall put up this chart and relegated President Cowdery's statement of fact to "Conjecture."

Then, at 31:00, Rosenvall says

I'll be the first to tell you we do use conjecture, but it's important that we let you know that this is an assumption and I hope you'll hear me say that often and so forth. So be careful when we do geography because there's a lot of this when we're trying to extrapolate, we're trying to figure it out and so forth. So we'll try to keep you on the fact side.

Let's set aside for now the strange characterization of their speculative interpretation of the text as "fact." At the same moment he's admitting he uses conjecture, he doesn't list his theories under Conjecture on his chart. Instead, he's telling viewers he's going to "keep you on the fact side" when he just ignored the facts about Letter VII.

As we saw in my previous post, they don't even tell readers of their website about Letter VII. Instead, they use all kinds of conjecture and obfuscation to confuse their readers, completely avoiding the "fact side."

This is how M2Cers and similar geography theorists avoid their Cumorah problem. 

In 1917, when L.E. Hills published the first map of Book of Mormon geography that showed Cumorah in southern Mexico, he dismissed Oliver Cowdery's declaration without quoting or citing it, just as Rosenvalls do in this video. 

We can all see why Rosenvalls decline to "keep us on the fact side" regarding Cumorah. For their theory to work, they have to put Cumorah in Baja California.

To "keep us on the fact side" they would need to inform viewers of the following historical accounts anyone can easily find. The existence of these accounts is a fact everyone agrees upon. 

Once educated, people can separately decide what to believe. But no one can make an informed decision without knowing the relevant facts. 

(If the Rosenvalls don't "have time" to explain these facts in video interviews, they can refer people to their website after they change it to keep it on the "fact side.")

(i) Oliver and Joseph visited the repository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah in New York multiple times. When he spoke about this in a conference just two months before he died, President Brigham Young said he did so because he feared the knowledge would otherwise be lost. See https://www.lettervii.com/2025/03/brigham-youngs-prophecy-about-cumorah.html

(ii) Oliver and Joseph, along with David Whitmer, met the messenger who, having received the abridged plates from Joseph in Harmony, said he was "going to Cumorah" before he brought the plates of Nephi to Fayette. Joseph identified him as one of the three Nephites.

(iii) Lucy Mack Smith reported that the first time he appeared to Joseph Smith, Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah. Thereafter, Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah and the entire family knew to what he referred, even before he took possession of the plates. 

(iv) In 1834, the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed made a series of accusations against the Church, including that the Book of Mormon was fiction. In response, as Assistant President of the Church, and with the assistance of Joseph Smith, Oliver wrote and published the first formal history of the Church, including Letter VII. 

(v) At the outset of the history he published, Oliver explained that "To do Justice to​ this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readears, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts." Throughout the essays, Oliver clearly distinguished between facts and speculation, such as when he explained he did not know how deep Moroni buried the stone box to account for erosion and when he explained that when he asked Joseph how long he prayed before Moroni came, "hours passed unnumbered—how many or how few I know not, neither is he able to inform me; but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later,"

(vi) President Cowdery explicitly declared it is a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates was the same hill called Cumorah/Ramah in the Book of Mormon and that this is the location of the final battles.

(vii) After they published Letter VII in the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph had it copied into his own journal as part of his life story where everyone can read it here:

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

(viii) Joseph had it republished in the Times and Seasons and Gospel Reflector, and it was republished in the Millennial Star, The Prophet, and later in the Improvement Era.

(ix) While many Church leaders have reaffirmed the New York Cumorah (such as President Romney in General Conference in 1975), no Church leader has ever repudiated what President Cowdery wrote in Letter VII.

Consistent with these historical facts, there are multiple hypotheses about the setting of the Book of Mormon that (i) show Cumorah in western New York and (ii) explain all the geographical information in the text.

The Rosenvalls are among many awesome, faithful Latter-day Saints who reject the facts stated above and who have instead explained all the geographical information in the text based on their own interpretations. That's all fine. People can believe whatever they want.

But we all know that when people hide, censor, or ignore relevant facts, it's because those facts don't support or corroborate the theories they are promoting.

_____

Their chart is misleading at best, as even they admit without apparently recognizing it. 

Look at it again.

What they frame as "fact" in the chart is actually nothing but their own conjecture about how the text should be interpreted. 

Everyone who has proposed a theory of geography relies on the identical text, convinced their own interpretation is "correct," or in this case, "on the fact side."

Yet the ensuing confusion shows us that the text is vague enough to support multiple working hypotheses.

That's why the prophetic guidance about Cumorah is essential.

And because the prophetic guidance contradicts their theory, the Rosenvalls relegate it to "conjecture."