In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, this is the third installment of a review of the podcast by Stick of Joseph that promotes the Baja theory by purporting to talk about Cumorah.
We emphasize that the podcasters are awesome Latter-day Saints who are well-intentioned. We offer these comments in the hope that they will take another look at what they've presented and correct the errors for future viewers. Ideally, they would explain to viewers why they did what they did.
It seems out of character for them to so blatantly misrepresent the facts.
And we're completely fine with people believing in a Baja model, and M2C model, or any other theory about Book of Mormon geography. We are just not fine with misleading people about the historical record in their effort to persuade people to accept their particular theories.
_____
In parts 1 and 2, we saw how the podcasters misled viewers about several basic historical facts, even going so far as to censor the passage in Letter VII in which Oliver Cowdery states it is a fact that the hill where Joseph found the plates is also Cumorah/Ramah.
In this part 3, we'll see how they contradicted their own standards of evidence and engaged in further misrepresentation and omission, solely to promote the Baja theory.
_____
We will start where Part 2 ended, with the censorship of Letter VII. Original transcript in blue, my comments in red, other quotations in green.
I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round, and I am certain that its appearance, as it rises so suddenly from a plain on the north, must attract the notice of the traveller as he passes by. At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90
The deliberate censorship of Oliver's statement of fact is inexcusable. The only plausible justification is that Rosenvall and the Stick of Joseph do not want their viewers to make informed decisions about their Baja theory.
Now we resume with the transcript from the video.
This must have been where they buried the plates and fought. Okay.
After censoring what President Cowdery wrote (he was Assistant President of the Church at the time and Joseph Smith called him President Cowdery), this podcast reframes Letter VII as a sort of logical conclusion or assumption: "This must have been..."
He says it again in another letter. Both of these are to WW Phelps as they’re conversing and I suspect studying in some place.
Phelps was in Missouri. Oliver was in Kirtland. The gratuitous comment about "studying in some place" makes no sense.
President Cowdery's essays on Church history were originally published as letters in the Messenger and Advocate, but they were also copied into Joseph's own journal as part of his history. With Joseph's approval, they were reprinted in the Gospel Reflector and Times and Seasons. They were reprinted in the Millennial Star in England and Joseph's brother William republished them in The Prophet, all during Joseph's lifetime.
If you were a Latter-day Saint during Joseph's lifetime, you knew like all the other members that it was a fact that Cumorah/Ramah was in New York.
So, from what I can tell these are the first ones that place Cumorah in New York.
This is a common logical fallacy used by the anti-New York Cumorah crowd.
The earliest known identification of Cumorah was by Moroni the first time he met Joseph Smith in September 1823. Joseph related it to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith. She also related another instance in 1827 when Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he obtained the plates. Lucy repeated this history frequently, but it was not written down until she dictated it in 1844/5. Consequently, historians claim it is "late" and therefore, presumably, untrustworthy.
By this standard, we cannot trust accounts about the First Vision, Moroni's visit, the restoration of the priesthood, etc., because these were all related retrospectively.
Besides, the Saints book quotes/cites Lucy's history over 100 times. Her history is the only substantial record of Joseph's early life and is deemed reliable, except where we can see she erred on specific dates.
The logical fallacy arises from assuming that retroactive accounts are erroneous. Because memory is imperfect, we look at corroboration. Joseph himself corroborated Lucy's account in D&C 128:20, when he wrote "Glad tidings from Cumorah! The book to be revealed.... " The glad tidings from Cumorah came before he obtained the plates, just as Lucy reported.
The podcast earlier mentioned the Ohio newspaper article that involved the four missionaries to the Lamanites. But they forgot to mention that during that same mission, Parley Pratt recorded teaching the Indians that it was Moroni himself who anciently called the hill Cumorah. We can all read this in his autobiography, which is not hearsay like the newspaper article that mentioned Chile.
There are other accounts, such as David Whitmer's explanation that the messenger who had the plates went to Cumorah before taking the plates of Nephi to Fayette.
While Oliver published Letter VII in 1835, these other accounts identify Cumorah starting in 1823, then 1827, then 1829, then 1830.
So, I’m adding their pins now.
[14:12]
Okay, so this is interesting because on one end, people that argue that had to be in Cumorah that he landed because of letter seven and and all this stuff. But Oliver Cowdery doesn’t readdress the landing spot of of where Lehi landed, right?Yep.
and all this and so I guess what I’m saying is because a lot of the pushback that we’ve gotten from our heartland friends is Oliver Cowdery said it happened in Cumorah, but it looks like he also said they landed in Chile.
See, here is where they try to confuse people by attacking Oliver's credibility. They've transformed their assumption/inference that (i) the Ohio paper accurately reported what was said by "they" about Chile and (ii) that the "they" identified in the article was actually Oliver Cowdery.
Then the podcasters equate that unattributed hearsay newspaper article to Oliver's formal declaration in Letter VII which he explained was written with Joseph's assistance, was republished multiple times with Joseph's express permission/direction, and even copied into Joseph's own journal.
They don't tell their viewers any of this.
Yeah.So, did did he land in Chile as well? Because as far as I understand, the, that group, the heartland group believes that he landed somewhere in Florida.
Florida.
Right? And so it’s like, okay, you can pick and choose and they’re like, you’re picking and choosing but it’s like, no, you’re picking and choosing too.
It should be evident to every viewer what they are doing here.
The podcast repeatedly ignores the important difference between the New York Cumorah/Ramah and speculation about landing in Chile. Not only did Oliver state Cumorah/Ramah was a fact, but he personally visited Cumorah in New York, including the repository of records there.
And so, the question has to be asked is like, by what standard can we pick and choose all of these comments by prophets, apostles, early church leaders, or maybe do we just need to pick a different standard than sifting through all of this?
This is a good point. One standard could be that we reject anything that contradicts our personal beliefs about geography, based on our subjective interpretation of the text, the way this Stick of Joseph podcast did here, which is also the way the M2Cers develop their own geography models based on repudiating the New York Cumorah.
Another standard could be that we rely on statements of fact by Church leaders, especially members of the First Presidency, based on their personal experience. This is the standard by which we establish belief in the First Vision, the recovery and translation of the plates, the restoration of the Priesthood and temple keys, etc. Related to this standard is that we rely on statements of fact repeated by multiple Church leaders in formal settings over many years.
[15:35]
Exactly. And And let me, you know, continue on that thought because Oliver Cowdery’s one apostle. I don’t know how we exclude him from all the other apostles.And Parley Pratt was he was one of the first he was part of the first 12.
That’s right. Yeah. And he also uses Peru. So, he’s putting pins down. So, now we’re getting lots of pins.
Parley joined the Church after the events Oliver wrote about. Parley never once claimed he knew any of this by personal experience.
Orson Pratt may be the one that I think we should if we’re going to use this process, we should look at because Orson Pratt was commissioned by the first presidency to add footnotes to the 1879 Book of Mormon. I mean, if there’s going to be anything official, it might we might want to look at this.
This is a good idea, but the podcasters don't tell the audience how Orson distinguished between fact and speculation in those footnotes. Regarding Cumorah, it was a fact. Regarding Chile, Colombia, and Panama, Orson explicitly stated it was merely an assumption by stating "it is believed..."
You can see how Orson Pratt distinguished between fact and speculation in these footnotes here: https://www.mobom.org/orson-pratts-1879-footnotes
Viewers of the Stick of Joseph should ask why the podcast did not make that clear. Instead, they confused their viewers with the following discussion.
And so, in the footnotes of this edition of the Book of Mormon, you find Chile as the landing spot, Ecuador, you find Colombia, and specifically the Magdalena River in Colombia they said was the River Sidon. You have New York as being the Hill Cumorah. You have the Isthmus of Panama. And so, it’s clear that they are trying to lay this out again in this American continent context.
Cuz that’s all you get from the text. The Book of Mormon text, right? And we read that very first verse in Was it Mormon?
In Joseph Smith’s history, when when you’re talking about Moroni
Oh, yeah, when Moroni. Sorry, it was Joseph Smith’s history. So, that’s all we get is that it’s the American continent.
Continent. Yeah.
This is difficult to follow, but it seems to be reprise of their earlier misleading discussion of the word "continent."
[17:14]
And so, I’ll just finish up again, W. W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams. He’s probably the one where we learn about the 30° south.
Yes.
That’s the very first one where he actually lays down a latitude. Which can I just say something about that?
Are these all apostles?
These are all apostles.
All of these are apostles, okay.
You know, I’m trying to create a the full collection of all these quotes because I think that’s the group we have to do. So,
And Orson Pratt for cuz I’m just trying to think about how people are going to try to debunk it. Orson Pratt was excommunicated in 1842. But he did come back and he was commissioned to do stuff after
Absolutely.
after he came back. So,
So, as far as I can tell using the quotes and putting these pins down and then going look at it, I mean, this is their geographical model all through the 1800s.
Mhm.
With Cumorah in New York, the narrow neck of land, a landing spot, Sidon was down in South America,
Yeah.
and east and west seas. And so, with this, I have to ask myself, how do I pick the pins to figure this out?
to include, yeah.
Now, here’s my problem. I’m an engineer. I do not know how in a set of data like this to just pick 25% of the pins.
Mhm.
If I was an engineer and did that, I would lose my license.
Yeah.
I have to use all the data or I have to say, “What were they measuring?”
I assume the logical fallacies here are obvious to viewers, but in case not, look at the way he is referring to speculation as "data" here.
The pin in the New York Cumorah/Ramah was established as a fact by Oliver Cowdery, as corroborated by Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Joseph Smith, and others. The speculation by the Pratt brothers was identified by Orson Pratt himself as speculation in the 1879 footnotes.
This is a classic example of mingling fact with assumptions, inferences and theories. This is why the FAITH model separates facts from the other elements.
Mhm.
And it seems to me that they were measuring and these quotes are based on this North and South America.
Yeah. They had a paradigm that was kind of stuck in their head.
Yeah.
And and they were trying to fit that model to
Yeah. None of them had the internet. And again, I don’t know what was taught in school, but there was definitely this concept of a continent. And that they were looking at it in its entirety, not the United States or not North America.
We discussed this focus on "continent" in Parts 1 and 2.
Yeah.
There’s no premise for that at all.
Interesting.
So,
cuz the United States was still only not even the United States, you know what I mean?
Yeah.
This is confusing, so have to infer he means that the United States circa 1830-1844 was not as large as today's United States. This is more gratuitous rhetoric that is irrelevant to the Cumorah question.
The Mississippi was kind of the western boundary at the very farthest.
Yeah.
And then everything else was unknown. In fact, Mexico had more land
Yeah.
part of the United States than they did.
[19:31]
I will also throw in Joseph F. Smith’s statement at the temple dedication in Hawaii that he says he’s standing amongst the descendants of Hagoth.
Mhm.
And so that’s another prophetic statement of
Uh-huh.
Just you know, apparently there was a way that those people got to Hawaii if we’re going to take that as
Yeah.
geographical truth.
Yeah.
And and I hope one of the things we allow is just like we’re trying to figure this out, they were trying to figure it out.
It bears repeating that this entire podcast confuses the audience by conflating what the prophets have said about Cumorah with the speculations of various people, including some early Church leaders. But those same Church leaders made the distinction between the fact of Cumorah and their speculation about geography.
Mhm.
And I don’t believe that they were receiving revelation every minute of the day.
This is a non-sequitur that serves only to confuse the audience. It reflects the common M2C argument that Oliver did not claim revelation for his statement of fact about Cumorah. But that is easily answered by observing that Oliver did not claim revelation for the visit of John the Baptist, the restoration of keys in the Kirtland temple, etc. He simply reported these events as facts, the same way he did regarding Cumorah, and he also explained that he visited the repository of Nephite records in Cumorah.
In fact, let me just show you this just quickly before I jump into this.
Oh, what is it?
This is an early map. I believe it was the late 1800s, early 1900s that somebody in the church had put out to teach from.
Really?
If Rosenvall and/or the Stick of Joseph had done any research, they would know that this map is the 1899 RLDS map published in the Report by the RLDS Committee on Archaeology. It was the RLDS scholar Louis E. Hills who published the first M2C map, showing Cumorah in southern Mexico. Hills and his collaborator Stebbins made the same argument about Oliver Cowdery being an ignorant speculator who could not be trusted.
Like this podcast, Hills and Stebbins ignored the other historical accounts that corroborate Letter VII.
And you can see it’s it’s got some elements, but definitely you can see Hill Cumorah in the top right. Land of many large bodies, which is interesting they put it right in the middle of the United States. Then things really don’t start getting heated up until you get to Central America. But that Central America is actually desolation.
Yeah.
in their models. Zarahemla is down in Ecuador. And and so forth. And so it’s it’s a good relative map to where the places are. But they’ve just got it all over in else North and South America.
That’s pretty great.So this is from 1899?
I think it’s 1899 is the earliest date you can see on there.
Baja getting no love right there. Baja is they didn’t even include all of Baja. They cut Wait, Baja is an island. Yeah, there it’s an island now. Uh I think it’s just it’s just cut up. There we’ll do a whole another thing on the island of Baja at some point.
But my point is this is in the early church I think there’s a clear indication that they were thinking of this as a hemispheric all the entire continent and just trying to put it down here.
While the historical record does indicate that a hemispheric model was promoted by the Pratt brothers and others, they clearly delineated it as speculation. In fact, when Joseph wrote the Wentworth letter, he deleted Orson Pratt's speculation about Central American and replaced it with the statement about the Indians in this country, as discussed in detail here:
https://www.mobom.org/wentworth-orson-pratt
More importantly, this belabored discussion of various models of geography has nothing to do with the Cumorah question. The podcasters are merely trying to sow doubt and confusion.
[21:29] So I want to just share a couple of thoughts that I think are so important when we’re going to talk about this is actually given in April 2012. In fact, do you want to read that to us?
Says, “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole church.”
This is an important explanation of doctrine that the podcasters don't seem to realize undermines their point, as we'll see.
It’s interesting that Elder Christofferson put this out there. And I’ll just say I think you see elements of this when people record state conferences and so forth or and and things like that that every word uttered is not revelation. He’s saying as much. In fact, this was a concept that was a concern for Joseph Smith. In fact, do you want to read what Joseph Smith said in 1843?
Says, “This morning I read German and visited with a a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that a prophet is always a prophet. But I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” [laughter] This is Joseph Smith and I hope we understand he recognized I’m going to be speaking as a prophet and I’m going to be speaking as a man. Yeah. And trying to figure out when that’s happening when that’s not can be difficult especially when it’s not canonized when it is not officially, you know, declared and things like that.
They cite two separate indicia of credibility: (i) when something is canonized and (ii) when something is officially declared.
The standard works are the only canonized material. They include an excerpt from Oliver Cowdery's Letter I regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. (That excerpt is usually not quoted in full by the SITH sayers, but that's another topic.)
The canonization of part of Letter I is an indication of its credibility. But the entire series of eight essays fit within the second category of official declarations.
Oliver wrote the essays with the express assistance of Joseph Smith; he wrote as Assistant President of the Church; he wrote from personal knowledge; he distinguished fact from speculation; and he published the essays in the official Church newspaper.
The essays were republished in official Church newspapers and copied into Joseph's personal journal as part of his life story. Few if any documents were republished as frequently or as authoritatively during Joseph's lifetime as Oliver's eight essays on Church history, including Letter VII.
Yeah. And this concept from Elder Christofferson, I think is one of the most repeated things of the last 20 years. President Holland talked about it. President Oaks has talked about it. So many of them have talked and reminded us, “Hey, uh there’s going to be times when individuals will say something, you need to look at where do all the brethren agree over time.” And so I think I think that’s my almost frustration sometimes is is the like, “Well, I’m just going to believe the prophet.” And it’s like, “Uh if you believe the prophet, then it’s also in Brazil. It’s also in Chile.
Here they show why President Christofferson's statement is so relevant. When one Apostle expresses an opinion, it does not become Church doctrine. That's why the speculation by early Apostles, which they acknowledged was speculation not based on personal experience or actual knowledge, led to a variety of theories.
That speculation is compounded by the various theories of scholars and other authors which explains why the various theories about Book of Mormon geography are inconsistent, even contradictory, and cannot be considered doctrine.
But President Cowdery did not speculate about Book of Mormon geography in these essays. He said nothing about Chile or any hemispheric models. What he did do is declare it is a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is the same hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates.
That declaration of fact distinguishes Letter VII from the various speculative theories. But that's not all.
The New York Cumorah/Ramah was taught not only by President Cowdery, but by everyone else who corroborated it, as discussed previously. It was taught by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others with personal knowledge of Joseph and Oliver and the Hill Cumorah. Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that the New York Cumorah was taught consistently for over 100 years.
And no Church leader has ever repudiated the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. To the contrary, Cumorah has been reiterated many times, including over 200 times in General Conference.
https://www.mobom.org/cumorah-overview
Thus, President Christofferson's guidance applies directly to speculative theories about geography but also places the New York Cumorah squarely within the category of consistent, unambiguous and continuous teachings by Church leaders, including in General Conference.
But these podcasters don't explain any of this to their viewers.
And it’s also like let’s either accept their model that they proposed or let’s let’s debate evidences and debate proofs and and look at like what has actually comes from the text and we can show that that’s real.
What "actually comes from the text" is a series of vague directional and distance terms that no two people read identically. Everyone who proposes a geography claims to rely on the text, but in reality they are relying on their interpretations of the text, just as the Baja proponents in this podcast do.
Let’s not use the like kind of spiritually manipulative, “Well, I just believe Joseph. Oh, that’s That’s just me.”
This is a good point. What is "spiritually manipulative" is claiming one's theories about geography reflect what Joseph Smith taught to the exclusion of alternative hypotheses that also incorporate those teachings.
But it is the opposite of "spiritually manipulative" to inform people about what the prophets actually taught about Cumorah and let them decide for themselves.
This podcast already has demonstrated several examples of deliberate misrepresentation of the historical record, solely to promote the Baja theory which puts Cumorah somewhere in the Baja area. To justify that position, the proponents have to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. One way to do that is to not tell people about those teachings, which these podcasters have done. Another is to censor and edit those teachings, which they have also done. A third way is to conflate those teachings with other tangential speculation about geography, which these podcasters have also done.
For sure. [24:07] I do want to say this is like as you can see, you have to do some picking and choosing if you’re going to be using the words of early church leaders, even Oliver Cowdery.
As we've seen, no one is "picking and choosing" among equivalent teachings. The Cumorah teachings are consistent, formally published, and stated as fact. Speculation about other geography is inconsistent, anecdotal and often unpublished or published as hearsay, and described as speculative by the authors.
So you have to you have to choose to disregard the Chile thing but keep the Cumorah thing or keep all of them or and so with that it’s just like, “Okay, maybe we need a use something that is more reliable.” You know what I mean?
This is pure sophistry, designed to confuse viewers.
And even when it comes to Zelph, for example, Zelph’s mound. Okay, where’s Zelph in the Book of Mormon? Oh, no, he’s a He wasn’t he the prophet Onandagus or isn’t What’s the whole thing Zelph is the... So Onandagus, as I understand it, was his leader.
Was his leader.
was known from the East Sea to the Rocky Mountains. Again, giving this massive, massive thing.
But here’s the thing, it’s not in the Book of Mormon.
That was the point. The accounts say Joseph had a revelation about Zelph. And this revelation came just a few days before Joseph wrote to Emma saying they had crossed "the plains of the Nephites" in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
Yeah. And as we’ll talk about and as we’ve talked about privately, there is a big group of Nephites who leave north uh in the middle of the Book of Mormon. And so, like at the end of the day, the question isn’t where did all the Nephites end up? The question is, where did the events in the Book of Mormon take place? And that’s a different question than where are all the Nephites? Cuz the Nephites could be spread everywhere. But, these events and these places have to be somewhere on a map. And that is the question needs to be asked. And Zelph’s Mound isn’t like a a a slam dunk of like, “Oh, this must be where the whole Book of Mormon happened.” because it’s an unknown person and an unknown leader. And that’s it. Like, it’s it’s not in the Book of Mormon.
This is the straw man fallacy. No one suggests Zelph determines "where the whole Book of Mormon happened."
me add two things to your wonderful point. First of all, it’s clear in the text that people would be swept off because of iniquity. Mhm. And so, I’m going to assume that they were swept off from wherever they were. The second, they found bones. Bones don’t last 2,500 years unless they’re mummified or something. Yes. So, the fact they’re finding bones where they are are going to suggest, “Hey, we’re looking at maybe a couple hundred years before 1800s.” And where are where are the scattered Nephites then? And they could have easily been in the Midwest.
Of course, the Zelph accounts place him at the time of the great battles, which is corroborated by archaeological dating, not merely a couple of hundred years before the 1800s. And the Zelph accounts do refer to Cumorah to the east of Ohio, not in Baja or Mexico.
[26:22] So, my hope is that everybody watching who is a part of the camp that has been super critical of this theory because of the Cumorah stuff, I hope that it’s just this is just kind of eye-opening to a fact of like, “Hey, maybe we need to pick something that’s a little bit more unbiased.”
Yes, they actually said this in the podcast.
After nearly 30 minutes of blatant disinformation and obfuscation on the issue, they suggest viewers should consider their podcast as "a little big more unbiased."
Unbelievable audacity.
And I I would say that that’s just the text. Yeah. Yes, cuz I can imagine that a lot of people that are very passionate about this um might be seething watching [laughter] this right now.
The only reason viewers would be "seething" right now is because viewers don't appreciate being lied to and misled. I’m stirring up the hornets’ nest. I know that.
If the purpose was to cause contention, they succeeded because nothing causes more contention than misinformation framed as "truth." Maybe this is another Freudian slip because they never actually intended to truthfully inform the viewers in the first place.
Let’s take a little break to reflect on some wise words of counsel that I think that we find uh the gospel topics on Book of Mormon geography.
Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.
This is an excellent entry on Gospel Topics as I've discussed before.
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html
But it is not relevant to the Cumorah question. It does not even mention Cumorah.
And we just saw that the podcasters' intent was to cause contention by stirring up a hornet's nest. So what, really, is the point of this podcast? They used Cumorah as clickbait and then ignored and misrepresented the historical record about Cumorah.
Okay? And hyper fixate on that last sentence there, you know? Because ultimately, the beauty of the Book of Mormon is that it is truly another testament of Jesus Christ, right? Uh where we’re trying to the reason that I think this is great that we’re having this conversation is that a lot of people have hyper fixated to the point where they are demonizing a side that doesn’t follow the prophets, right?
There may be people who demonize others for not following the prophets, but this looks like another straw man argument because they don't identify who any of these people are. Instead, they are doing exactly what the Church leaders ask us not to do; i.e., cause contention by promoting private theories and interpretations.
The only way to realistically handle the question of geography is to pursue clarity, charity and understanding instead of seeking to convince, compel, or convert people to one point of view or another.
And clarity means transparency about all the facts, without misrepresenting them, without censoring them, and without conflating them with personal assumptions, inferences, etc.
And so as we’ve And I’m grateful that you’ve gone through these cuz it shows that maybe it’s not the most strong position or accurate thing to say, “Look, if you don’t believe in X model of the Book of Mormon geography, then you’re not following the prophets.”
This repeats the straw man fallacy because no one is saying that about any particular model.
I hope that’s not we’re trying to put you We’re trying to figure this out. Yeah.
It's not credible to say they are trying to figure this out when they have just deliberately misrepresented the facts, as we've all seen. And not to be absolute or to not take the opportunity to learn and add to our knowledge. And I hope that’s what we’re doing is adding to not to be authoritative as you asked before. I have no authority to do that.
I think this is something that David does really well, and this is why David’s always proposing looking at the bigger looking at your assumptions, looking at the model that you’re building, and what that all includes. And And as he pointed out earlier, if you’re going to pick up the prophet stick, you got to pick up the whole stick.
This is more of the same effort to confuse people by conflating Cumorah with speculative geographical theories.
Yeah. And that probably means you believe in a hemispheric model that like both North and South America is where it happened. I think that’s very hard to argue when you actually read the Book of Mormon. It’s very difficult. I think what you pointed out is so important to remember of we’re not arguing that there are zero Nephites in the Ohio River Valley or in the Rocky Mountains or even maybe in Mexico. What we’re arguing is the the place that they are describing in the book is a specific place and we should be able to match the geographical characteristics that they’re describing, but it it’s not saying that they never spread out. I mean, as David just pointed out, the book says that they’re wiped off the face of the Book of Mormon land that they’re describing, that they’re wiped away from it. Yeah. So.
This is difficult to follow, but apparently they mean that although the Book of Mormon events, including Cumorah/Ramah, took place in Baja, the people were swept off that land and so Nephites and Lamanites may have gone throughout the hemisphere.
But Moroni wrote about the Jaredites "in this north country" where he lived, so he was not swept off the land of the Jaredites, which was also the land of the Nephites. In fact, Moroni told Joseph that the record was "written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home in Palmyra, which is another corroboration of the New York Cumorah.
Later in the podcast they address that point, which we will cover in Part 4.
[29:40]
So, I mean, the thing that’s the thing that’s hard though that I’ll say is like for example in the introduction to the Book of Mormon right now. This is the current introduction to the Book of Mormon. After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni who added a few words of his own and hit hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah. So, it says in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that the plates were hid up in the Hill Cumorah. And then right after that says on September 21st, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified resurrected being, appeared to Joseph uh Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language. Yeah. Now, the introduction to the Book of Mormon who’s that written by? Committee. It’s written by committee.
Regardless of who wrote the Introduction, the statement about Cumorah simply reflects the consistent, unambiguous historical record about Cumorah.
Um but I mean, there have been multiple things that have been put in the Book of Mormon. So, originally uh in was it the 1840 um Four. Book of Mormon where it had the geographical notes in there. Well, 1879 had 1920 they took it out. In fact, in general conference they explained why. Yeah. Because they didn’t, there was so much contention around this. Yes. And so so like there have been things that have been in the in the scriptures like the introduction in footnotes and things like that. But um those have been removed.
Except the Introduction's comments about Cumorah have not been removed.
It would be interesting to be like, “Hey, I mean Well, and also before 2007 the introduction read that uh it says after thousands of years all were destroyed except the Lamanites. Uh and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. That’s what it said pre-2007. And now it says, “And they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” So, what you can see is that even this introduction is evolving over time as we learn more things. Yeah. And so they changed that.
This change was a reversion to what Joseph Smith said in the Wentworth letter when he removed Orson Pratt's speculation about Central America, but the introduction still reflects D&C 28, 30 and 32.
I just want to put all of that out on the table because then what happens is people listen and they’re like, “Well, they didn’t talk about this.” And it’s like the point still stands. Um our understanding of the internal geography of the Book of Mormon has evolved over time. It used to be hemispheric. It used to be included in the footnotes.
They keep saying this, but those footnotes distinguished between the fact of the New York Cumorah and the speculation about the other geography.
Now it’s not. We used to say in the introduction that it was the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. DNA evidence has proven that’s not the case.
Reverting to what Joseph wrote was a good idea.
And then right now it says that uh the plates were deposited in the Hill Cumorah. But I think it’ll be interesting to see what what you have to share today. Um that may evolve as well.
There is no reason to change the statement about Cumorah because the historical record is clear and unambiguous.
Absolutely. There’s definitely a principle of line upon line, principle upon precept upon precept that even the church is recognizing. And I love that about the church is that not everything was revealed in 1830 to a few select people. Mhm. We are learning this together as we go forward, so Yeah, it’s an ongoing restoration. Well, all right. Well, let’s hear what you have to say about this. [32:48] again, our approach is let’s get into the text, let’s try to see what the text is saying about the Hill Cumorah.
The rest of the podcast relates the personal, subjective interpretation of the text they use to promote the Baja theory. But every theory does exactly the same thing. The proponents claim such and such a word or passage must mean such and such. That's why there are so many different theories and that's what leads to contention the moment anyone looks at these theories with any intention other than to just understand what other people think.
So, I’m going to start in a unique place. We’re going to start in the land of Nephi to try to figure this out because there’s not a lot specifically about the Hill Cumorah other than they buried plates.
This is precisely why it was important for Moroni to tell Joseph the name of the hill the first time they met.
And so we’ve got to do some geography around this. So, maybe we could do is we’ll just read some of these things as we go through and on the left I’m going to start just laying out a model Okay. based on the text and challenge me if you think we’re off there. So, Hayden, do you want to start us off and just read what it says? Yeah. And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land of Nephi amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea on the on the east and on the west. Okay. So, the land of Nephi, by the way, did you it was the king of the Lamanites. That was the king over the land of Nephi. It seems kind of opposite, but this is where we start. And I think it’s pretty clear. We’ve got a land and I’m just going to represent those by boxes with the sea on the east and on the west.
Anyone who has followed these geography theories knows what is coming next. This podcast interprets everything to fit Baja. Others interpret the text to fit whatever setting they prefer. In this podcast, they actually insert words into the text to support their Baja theory.
All of that is fine. But it does not justify the way they mislead viewers about the historical record.
And we didn't even get into all the historical references about Cumorah that they omitted.
In summary, no viewer should accept a podcast such as this. It is worse than a waste of time because it is so deceptive.
We have to wonder how these podcasters think it builds faith in the Book of Mormon to affirmatively misrepresent the historical record that we can all see. It would be far better to lay out all the facts and then explain the various assumptions and inferences they apply to those facts so viewers can make informed decisions.
Let's all hope that in the future, the Stick of Joseph and other podcasters adopt the FAITH model of analysis in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.
We'll skip all the speculative interpretation of the text to get to more points in Part 4.
