Monday, February 10, 2025

Kno-why #431 - Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we'll do a peer review of Kno-Why #431.

https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/where-did-the-book-of-mormon-happen?

In this Kno-Why, Scripture Central goes to some length to explain why no one knows where the Book of Mormon events took place and why we should look at scholars--their scholars--for answers. In the process, they explicitly reject what the prophets have taught about Cumorah/Ramah in New York. 

This Kno-Why shows precisely why it is unthinkable for Scripture Central to promote only one theory, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C), instead of accommodating, comparing, and explaining the multiple working hypotheses developed by faithful Latter-day Saints, including those who still believe Cumorah/Ramah is in New York, and those who believe it is elsewhere.

Most Latter-day Saints would welcome transparency on this issue, but Scripture Central refuses to allow that. 

_____

Original in blue, my comments in red, other quotations in green.

KnoWhy #431 | August 20, 2020


Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?

Post contributed by Scripture Central





“It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations” 2 Nephi 1:8

This verse informs us that wherever Lehi landed, it was a location not occupied by other nations.

The Know

Readers of the Book of Mormon may wonder, at times, where in the Americas the events described took place. 

The "Americas" is a term used by the modern historians to blur Church history. If you do a search in the Joseph Smith Papers for the term "Americas," you get 13 results. All of them are in the notes written by modern historians to reframe Church history. The term "Americas" is a substitute for the terms used in the historical record, which shows that Moroni referred to "this country" and "this continent," as well as "Cumorah." Here, Scripture Central adopts this approach by instead teaching that these specific terms referred vaguely to "the Americas."

Were the Nephites and Lamanites spread throughout both North and South America or did Book of Mormon events occur within a more confined area? Where did Lehi’s ship land? Where were famous Book of Mormon cities, like Zarahemla and Bountiful, or the epic battlefields of the Nephites and Lamanites, such as Cumorah?

Interest in answering these questions began almost immediately after the Book of Mormon was published. 

Actually, the historical record informs us that Cumorah was known before the Book of Mormon was even translated.

Moroni instructed Joseph Smith about Cumorah even before he got the plates. Joseph's mother explained that the first time they met, Moroni told Joseph 

"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— then the angel left him.

She also explained that in early 1827, before he got the plates, Joseph met Moroni at Cumorah. When he came home late one night, he explained 

“I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”. My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”


“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— 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; that the time had come for the record to <​be​> brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: but, Father,’ continued he, ‘give yourself no uneasiness concerning the reprimand that I have received; for I now know the course that I am to pursue; so all will be well.”


It was also made known to him at this interview, that he should make another effort to obtain the plates on the 22d. of the following September; But this he did not mention to us at that time.


In June 1829, David Whitmer traveled to Harmony to pick up Joseph and Oliver. Before leaving Harmony, Joseph had given the plates to a divine messenger. On the way back to Fayette, they encountered the messenger along the road.

"When I was returning to Fayette with Joseph and Oliver all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old fashioned wooden spring seat and Joseph behind us, while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon who saluted us with, “good morning, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and by a sign from Joseph I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.’ This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked round enquiringly of Joseph the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again."

REPORT OF ELDERS ORSON PRATT AND JOSEPH F. SMITH to President John Taylor and Council of the Twelve. 


Only months later, a group of missionaries, including Oliver Cowdery, were apparently telling people in Ohio that Lehi “landed on the coast of Chile.”1 

Note 1 refers to an antagonistic article published in an Ohio newspaper in Nov. 1830 that reported on the mission to the Lamanites (D&C 28, 30, 32) by Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer, Jr. 


The note includes a link to the original, which is difficult to read. A transcript is available here, although it omits a portion of the original article about the discovery of the plates that is illegible:


Anyone can read the article and see it does not attribute the statement about Chile to Oliver specifically. The article does refer to Oliver's narrative regarding the plates and the translation, but then proceeds to describe "the testimony of these men" with lots of errors, such as the claim that neighbors stole some of the golden plates, that the sealed plates "escaped from them," etc.


Then the article says, 


This new Revelation, they say is especially designed for the benefit, or rather for the christianizing of the Aborigines of America; who, as they affirm, are a part of the tribe of Manasseh, and whose ancestors landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ, and from them descended all the Indians of America.


"They say" separates this paragraph from Oliver's narrative. It was Parley P. Pratt (and his brother, Orson) who promoted the hemispheric model, not Oliver. Orson even included the Chile landing in his footnotes of the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, recognizing there that it was speculative, in contrast to his footnote on the Hill Cumorah/Ramah, which was simply a known fact. See https://www.mobom.org/orson-pratts-1879-footnotes


But people forget that in the 1842 Wentworth letter, Joseph edited out Orson's speculation about the descendants of Lehi in Central America by writing instead that "The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."



Scripture Central forgot to inform readers that during this mission, Oliver specifically explained that the hill where the record was hidden was called Cumorah by Moroni.

"This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.


"In that neighborhood there lived a young man named Joseph Smith, who prayed to the Great Spirit much, in order that he might know the truth; and the Great Spirit sent an angel to him, and told him where this Book was hid by Moroni; and commanded him to go and get it. He accordingly went to the place, and dug in the earth, and found the Book written on golden plates. 


A couple of years later, W. W. Phelps linked the land of Desolation to the mid-western United States, ranging from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains.2 

Phelps was enthusiastic about citing evidence of all kinds, but never attributed his speculation to Joseph or Oliver. He was apparently also helping to edit the 1842 Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, a topic we'll discuss below. But he was never called as an apostle or prophet. If we heed the words of the prophets, we avoid confusion because the prophets have consistently and repeatedly made two points clear: (i) Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don't know for sure where the other events took place.

The next year, Phelps got ahold of reports about ancient ruins in Guatemala with stones “cemented by mortar,” and argued that this find was “good testimony in favor of the Book of Mormon,” specifically the account in Helaman 3:3–11.3

Again, Phelps was enthusiastic about citing evidence of all kinds, but never attributed his speculation to Joseph or Oliver.

Clearly, for early Latter-day Saints, events in the Book of Mormon were believed to have spanned the entire Western Hemisphere. 

"Clearly" is a rhetorical device, not evidence. There were a handful of LDS authors who expressed this speculation. That cannot be legitimately projected onto all early LDS, especially when the Wentworth letter refuted Orson Pratt's speculation. 

Any and all ancient or pre-Columbian ruins and artifacts found throughout North, Central, and South America (known as a "hemispheric" geography approach) were quickly accepted as evidence of Book of Mormon peoples. 

To be clear, this passive voice Scripture Central uses here is misleading. It was only a handful of authors, mainly the Pratt brothers and Phelps, who promoted the hemispheric model.

Even Joseph Smith was not above the fray. 

The "fray?" There was no fight, struggle or dispute during Joseph's lifetime. Everyone knew Cumorah/Ramah was in New York. The only display of "fray" was Joseph correcting Orson Pratt's speculation when he wrote the Wentworth letter. Scripture Central frames the discussion as a "fray" to (i) cast doubt on the teachings of the prophets as merely their opinions and (ii) portray themselves as the only ones "qualified" (by their own criteria) to resolve the "dispute." 

But Joseph was well above any "fray" that may have existed. He was consistent and confident. He never once linked the Book of Mormon to anyplace other than North America, and everything he said or wrote put the Book of Mormon in North America, with Cumorah in New York, as we'll see below.

In a letter to Emma while marching with Zion’s camp in 1834, Joseph Smith described their travels as “wandering over the plains of the Nephites” and “picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”4

Joseph's observation was not part of a "fray" but simply Joseph telling Emma what they were doing. 

Scripture Central omitted the part of the quotation that specifically identifies Ohio, Indiana and Illinois as the setting for "the history of the Book of Mormon."

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity,

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-emma-smith-4-june-1834/3

We can all see that Joseph unequivocally taught that these mounds were left by the Nephites. 

Note 14 in the JSP relates the Zelph account. Modern archaeology corroborated both the dates and the geographical scope that Joseph told the men that day.

On 3 June, the Camp of Israel passed through the vicinity of what is now Valley City, Illinois, where several members of the camp climbed a large mound. At the top, they uncovered the skeletal remains of an individual JS reportedly identified as Zelph, a “white Lamanite.” Archeologists have since identified the mound as Naples–Russell Mound #8 and have classified it as a Hopewell burial mound of the Middle Woodland period of the North American pre-Columbian era (roughly 50 BC to AD 250).

Years later, Joseph Smith received a book on Central American ruins as a gift. 

It was actually two books by Stephens and Catherwood. Vol 1 was 424 pages. Vol 2 was 474 pages. 

The passive voice here obscures the facts that Wilford Woodruff carried the two books at the request of John Bernhisel from New York City to Nauvoo and commented in his journal about reading them along the way. He wrote "I felt truly interested in this work for it brought to light a flood of testimony in proof of the book of mormon... their whole travels were truly interesting... It is truly one of the most interesting histories I have ever read."


Woodruff arrived in Nauvoo on Oct. 6. He met with the Twelve and cut wood and hay until the 16th, when he crossed the river to Zarahemla. He lists the various people he met. He returned to Nauvoo on the 19th. In his journal, the first time Woodruff mentions meeting with Joseph Smith was October 31.


Woodruff may have met Joseph earlier without mentioning it. But he never mentions giving the books to Joseph. Woodruff does mention that on Nov. 5, after four days of illness, "I wrote a letter to Dr Bernhisel." That letter is not extant.

In a letter thanking the giver, he stated that it “corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon.”5 

We know Joseph did not write the brief Nov. 16 thank-you note because it is in the handwriting of John Taylor. Whether Joseph dictated or delegated this letter is a question of assumptions and inferences. The letter itself does not answer that question, so we consider extrinsic evidence.

The first paragraph of the letter is a thank-you note.

I received your kind present by the hand of Er. Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & developes many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumnes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprihensive.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-johnm-bernhisel-16november-1841/1 

It also seems unlikely that Joseph had time to "read the volumes," which total 898 pages. Apart from this letter, there are no accounts in contemporary journals of Joseph ever reading part or all of these books, which would have been a stunning accomplishment given everything going on in Nauvoo in the fall of 1841.

Like Woodruff's journal entry, the thank-you note describes the books as interesting histories that offer a testimony of the Book of Mormon. This similarity of language suggests the Woodruff may have drafted the thank-you note, at Joseph's request, separately from his own Nov. 5th letter to Bernhisel.

The scenario could have gone like this. Woodruff delivered the books to Joseph, who asked if he read them. Woodruff says yes, and says they are interesting histories that support the testimony of the Book of Mormon. Joseph says great, can you write Bernhisel a thank-you note for me? And give it to John Taylor who is responding on our real estate transaction.

The second paragraph of the Nov. 16 letter is a continuation of ongoing correspondence between Joseph and Bernhisel regarding real estate in Nauvoo. The second paragraph differs from the previous correspondence in several respects, which suggests it was delegated as well instead of dictated.

The implications of these facts and the related assumptions and inferences are discussed here: https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/1841-bernhisel-letter-josephs-or-wilfords . Note: after that article was written, the Joseph Smith Papers determined that the Nov. 16 letter is in John Taylor's handwriting.

The two key points here are (i) Joseph did not write the letter, and (ii) whether Joseph dictated or delegated the letter is a question of assumptions and inferences based on all the facts. 


In 1842, while Joseph Smith was the editor, the Times and Seasons published several articles highlighting ruins in Central America as evidence for the Book of Mormon.6 

The evidence shows that Joseph was merely the nominal editor, just as he was the nominal printer and publisher. Although Joseph was listed as the printer, no one thinks he was setting type, running the press, etc. Nor was Joseph actually editing the paper. Woodruff reported during this time that Joseph barely had time to sign the papers they prepared for him. 

In March 1842, Joseph had personally written the Wentworth letter, which was largely an edited version of an earlier pamphlet by Orson Pratt. See the explanation here:

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

In the Wentworth letter, Joseph edited out Orson Pratt's multi-page speculation about Central America and replaced it with the statement that "The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country." See the comparison here:

https://www.mobom.org/wentworth-orson-pratt

Joseph's statement in the Wentworth letter aligns with the designation of the Indians who lived in New York through Missouri as the Lamanites in D&C 28, 30, 32.


Like his peers, the Prophet evidently believed that all ancient ruins and artifacts spanning across the American continents were evidence of Book of Mormon lands and peoples.

There are no direct statements from Joseph Smith that support this. All speculation about what Joseph believed about a hemispheric setting is based on assumptions and inferences from anonymous articles and the Bernhisel letter we know he did not write. The only scriptural passage is D&C 128:20, which firmly places Cumorah in New York.

Although most early Latter-day Saints had a hemispheric understanding of Book of Mormon geography, there was no universally accepted model of Book of Mormon lands, and different opinions persisted about several topics. 

While this is true regarding "geography" generally, the one universally accepted "pin in the map" is the New York Cumorah/Ramah. 

For example, while the idea that Lehi landed in Chile would grow to become a widespread tradition in the Church,7 under Joseph Smith’s editorship, the Times and Seasons stated that Lehi “landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien,” that is, just south of Panama.8 In 1842, Parley P. Pratt seemed to place Desolation in Central America, contrary to Phelps earlier identification.9

None of these are direct statements by Joseph Smith.

Careful analysis of early writings on Book of Mormon geography reveals a diversity of ideas and opinions on the location of nearly every Book of Mormon place.10 

"Nearly every Book of Mormon place" does not include Cumorah.

By 1890, President George Q. Cannon noted there were several different and conflicting Book of Mormon geographies in circulation, and “no two of them … agree on all points.” President Cannon then made clear that the First Presidency did not endorse any of these maps because, “The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.”11

These examples reflect the wisdom of Church leaders distinguishing between (i) Cumorah/Ramah in New York and (ii) all the other sites. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible archaeological sites that could pertain to the Book of Mormon, which is why there are so many different theories.

The Why

The number of maps has only grown over the course of the 20th and into the 21st century as many have continued to propose various models.12 While questions of geography are far from settled, our understanding of the book’s physical setting has improved thanks to the increasingly more rigorous work of many scholars interested in questions of Book of Mormon geography. 

This is far from clear because most of the scholars who discuss this topic reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

For example, today most proposals focus only on a specific area or region of the American continent, because more careful study has made it clear that the scope of Book of Mormon lands must be limited.13

The fallacy of this argument is obvious. The text never mentions America, the American continent, the western hemisphere, or any other modern term. The only reason to limit "the scope of Book of Mormon lands" to the American continent is because of what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery specifically said about the setting. It's irrational to conclude that they were correct about America but wrong about Cumorah. 

But through all of this the Church has continued to maintain a stance of neutrality, as expressed by President Cannon in 1890.14 

Again, this is the only rational position to take.

Even the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles has been considered uncertain.15 

Note 15 is a good example of confusion generated by scholars. For a more complete account of that topic, see https://www.mobom.org/1990-letter-on-cumorah.

Nothing said on the topic by Church leaders, past or present—Joseph Smith included—is recognized as revelation. 

If D&C 128:20 is not revelation, why is it canonized? D&C 128:20 validates all the other historical accounts regarding Cumorah, starting with Moroni's first visit to Joseph Smith.

As apostle John A. Widtsoe said, “As far as can be learned, Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred.”16

Everyone agrees that we don't know where the activities occurred, other than Cumorah/Ramah.

Even while remaining officially neutral, however, several Church leaders have encouraged appropriate and diligent study of the topic, even recommending how to properly study it out. President Cannon, for instance, wrote, “there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit.”17 Elder James E. Talmage said:

The fact is, the Book of Mormon does not give us precise and definite information whereby we can locate those places with certainty. I encourage and recommend all possible investigation, comparison and research in this matter. The more thinkers, investigators, workers we have in the field the better; but our brethren who devote themselves to that kind of research should remember that they must speak with caution and not declare as demonstrated truths points that are not really proved.18

All good. These statements are precisely why it is unthinkable for Scripture Central to promote only one theory, the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, instead of accommodating, comparing, and explaining the multiple working hypotheses developed by faithful Latter-day Saints, including those who still believe Cumorah/Ramah is in New York, and those who believe it is elsewhere.

Ultimately, as several leaders have stressed, while the subject is of interest and has value, readers should not let it distract them from true purpose of the Book of Mormon. 

This is axiomatic. But Scripture Central's insistence on only one interpretation--an interpretation that expressly repudiates the teachings of the prophets--is a major distraction from the true purpose of the book.

Elder Russell M. Nelson explained that he has “read much that has been written about” the Book of Mormon, including studies of “its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of buildings, or systems of weights and measures.” Yet, “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ.”19

Further Reading
Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–275.

John E. Clark, “Book of Mormon Geography,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:176–179.

John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, rev. ed. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992).

 

1. “The Golden Bible, or, Campbellism Improved,” Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, Ohio), November 18, 1830, spelling modernized.
2. W. W. Phelps, “The Far West,” The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 5, October 1832.
3. W. W. Phelps, “Discovery of Ancient Ruins in Central America,” The Evening and the Morning Star, 1, no. 9, February 1833; spelling and capitalization altered.
4. Joseph Smith to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834, pp. 57–58, online at josephsmithpapers.org. Many historians believe this is alluding to the Zelph incident. For more information, see Book of Mormon Central, “Who Was Zelph? (Helaman 6:6),” KnoWhy 336 (July 7, 2017).
5. Joseph Smith to John M. Berhnisel, November 16, 1841, online at josephsmithpapers.org. See Matthew Roper, “John Bernhisel’s Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 207–253.
6. “Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Azteca Nations,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 16, June 15, 1842, 818–820; “American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 18, July 15, 1842, 858–860; “Extract from Stephens’ ‘Incidents of Travel in Central America’,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 911–915; “Facts are Stubborn Things,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 921–922; “Zarahemla,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 23, October 1, 1842, 927–928. Motivated by geographical theories which are contradicted by these articles, some have tried to distance Joseph Smith from their authorship and publication. Both historical and statistical analysis, however, strongly support Joseph’s involvement with these articles. See Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography,” FARMS Review 22, no. 2 (2010): 70–83; Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, Atul Nepal, “Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons, and Central American Ruins,” Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 84–97; Neal Rappleye, “‘War of Words and Tumult of Opinions’: the Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 37–95; Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Central American Ruins, and the Book of Mormon,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2015), 141–162; Matthew Roper, Paul Fields, and Larry Bassist, “Zarahemla Revisited: Neville’s Newest Novel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 13–61.
7. The popularity of this tradition was largely due to Orson Pratt and Fredrick G. Williams. Orson Pratt was heard teaching that Lehi “came across the water into South America” as early as 1832. See B. Stokely, “The Orators of Mormon,” Catholic Telegraph 1, April 14, 1832. Pratt’s views on Book of Mormon geography became widespread and influential with the release of the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, which included footnotes, written by Pratt, making external correlations to Book of Mormon places. In a footnote to the phrase “we did arrive to the promised land” in 1 Nephi 18:23, Pratt noted, “believed to be on the coast of Chile, S. America” (spelling modernized). See Joseph Smith Jr., trans., The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon (Liverpool, Eng.: William Budge, 1879), 47. Fredrick G. Williams copied a highly specific statement that Lehi landed “in Chile thirty degrees south Latitude” (spelling modernized), which later was believed to be a revelation from Joseph Smith. The actual origins of the statement, however, are murky and unclear. See Fredrick G. Williams III, “Did Lehi Land in Chile? An Assessment of the Frederick G. Williams Statement,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1988); Frederick G. Williams, “Did Lehi Land in Chile?,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 57–61.
8. “Facts are Stubborn Things,” Times and Seasons, 3, no. 22, September 15, 1842, 922.
9. Parley P. Pratt, “Ruins in Central America,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 2, no. 11, March 1842, 161–165.
10. Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–275, esp. pp. 254–255.
11. George Q. Cannon, “Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography,” Juvenile Instructor 25, no. 1 (1890): 18.
12. For comparison of 60 different proposals, see John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 37–206.
13. See John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 55–81. Already in 1903, some were disputing proposals for Book of Mormon geography on the grounds that “students could not reconcile the statements as to time consumed in traveling from one place to another with Zarahemla being at the point claimed by him.” See “Book of Mormon Students Meet: Interesting Convention Held in Provo Saturday and Sunday,” Deseret Evening News, May 25, 1903; reprinted in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 22, no. 2 (2013): 109. In 1909, B. H. Roberts suggested, “the physical description relative to the contour of the lands occupied by the Jaredites and Nephites … can be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the Isthmus of Tehuantepec between,” but ultimately continued to promote a hemispheric view. B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News, 1909), 3:502–503. Even in the 19th century, there was precedent for limiting the scope of Book of Mormon geography. See Roper, “Limited Geography,” 242–255, 260–265.
14. See Roper, “Limited Geography,” 255–260; “Is there a revealed Book of Mormon geography?” FairMormon AnswersWiki, online at fairmormon.org.
15. In a Fax sent from the office of the First Presidency, April 23, 1993, F. Michael Watson—then secretary to the First Presidency, said, “While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.” See “Did the First Presidency identify the New York ‘Hill Cumorah’ as the site of the Nephite final battles?” FairMormon AnswersWiki, online at fairmormon.org. Elder John A. Widtsoe, of the Quorum of the Twelve and President Harold B. Lee also considered the location of the final Nephite battles an open question. See John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” Improvement Era 53, no. 7 (July 1950): 547; Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; quoted online at fairmormon.org. See also David A. Palmer, “Cumorah,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:346–347; Rex C. Reeve Jr., “Cumorah, Hill” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 222–224.
16. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547.
17. Cannon, “Book of Mormon Geography,” 19.
18. James E. Talmage, Conference Report, April 1929, 44. Also consider Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547: “Students must depend, chiefly, upon existing natural monuments, such as mountains, rivers, lakes, or ocean beaches, and try to identify them with similar places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Ruins of early cities are also used as clues by the investigator. Usually, an ideal map is drawn based upon geographical facts mentioned in the book. Then a search is made for existing areas complying with the map. All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures.”
19. Russell M. Nelson, “A Testimony of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, November 1999, online at lds.org.
at No comments:

Thursday, February 6, 2025

Peer review of Jack Welch's translation timeline

Recently Jack Welch discussed his timeline for the translation of the Book of Mormon on a podcast. That reminded me of the article he published in BYU Studies. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/timing-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-days-and-hours-never-to-be-forgotten

It's an important article that has become a sort of standard for everyone considering the topic. It's excellent work that gives us a lot of useful information, in context, which enables everyone who reads it to make better informed decisions.

The opening sentence of the article prompted me to write this informal, unsolicited "peer review."

"This paper aims to stimulate specific thinking about the intense and complex events during which the Book of Mormon was translated in 1829." 

Although Jack's article is excellent, there are some omissions and assumptions that, if addressed, would improve the narrative. 

In some ways I understand the apologetic benefit of having as short a period as possible for Joseph to dictate the Book of Mormon. It arguably makes the process more miraculous.

On the other hand, pushing the apologetic approach can distort the historical record. For that reason, in this peer review I'll look at some of the areas for improvement.

Basically, I think the historical evidence shows that Joseph translated all or most of Mosiah before Oliver arrived in Harmony, which means it took longer to translate the plates than Jack proposes in his article.

It's not a big difference, but it has some implications that are worth considering.

_____


The article appeared in the issue featuring the "Moroni" painting on the cover. 

I love the painting.

But I disagree with the Moroni narrative for all the reasons we've discussed before, not the least of which is that Joseph Smith specifically said the messenger was one of the Three Nephites. 

And, of course, David Whitmer conversed with both this messenger and with Moroni and knew they were different people. And Mary Whitmer herself said he introduced himself as "Brother Nephi."

In my view, the whole "Moroni" narrative promoted by Jack and Scripture Central deflects from the point that the messenger took the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah before bringing the plates of Nephi (D&C 10) to Fayette. But that's a separate topic from this peer review

_____

Jack's articles are always well organized and thoughtful, and this one is no exception. It is definitely worth reading carefully. I'm not taking the time to go through the entire article here. I start with a paragraph under the section Five Anchor Dates.

Original in blue, my comments in red, other quotations in green.

 ... anchor date 1 [April 7] is substantially secure.

Before that date, and without property rights and protective security, little translation took place in the first three months of 1829. 

How much translation took place before Oliver arrived is the main question here. 

Of course, a year before, the book of Lehi had been translated, with Martin Harris as the main scribe. Emma and Reuben Hale apparently acted as scribes in those three months as well.20 When Emma said in 1856 that she wrote “a part of” the manuscript of the Book of Mormon, she was referring to a time when Joseph said to Emma that he was surprised to read that Jerusalem had walls.21 But that text about Jerusalem could have been either at the beginning of the lost book of Lehi, translated in April 1828, or at the beginning of 1 Nephi, translated in June 1829, and was likely not translated between September 1828 and April 7, 1829.

At least six documents say that a little was translated in 1829 prior to April 7.

There is also evidence that some was translated in 1828 after September, when Joseph got the plates and interpreters back.

David Whitmer said the translation took eight months.

The work of translating the tablets consumed about eight months, Smith acting as the seer and Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s wife, and Christian Whitmer, brother of David, performing the duties of amanuenses [scribe], in whose handwriting the original manuscript now is. 

Vol. XLV, The Chicago Daily Tribune, Thursday, December 17, 1885

Oliver and Christian were scribes at the Whitmer home in Fayette. David may also have observed Emma acting as scribe in Fayette, or have seen Emma’s scribal work on the manuscript Joseph brought from Harmony. John Gilbert, the typesetter, said

“I would know that manuscript today if I should see it. The most part of it was in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting. Some in Joseph’s wife’s; a small part, though.”

James T. Cobb interview with John H. Gilbert in “The Hill Cumorah,” The Saints’ Herald (Plano, ILL), Vol. 28, No. 11, June 1, 1881, p. 165. Online at http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#060181

If David was correct, counting back eight month from June 1829 when the translation was completed at the Whitmer home in Fayette means Joseph resumed translating in November 1828.

In his 1832 history, Joseph explained that before Oliver arrived in Harmony in April 1829, his brother Samuel scribed for him.

my wife had written some for me to translate and also my Brothr Samuel H Smith but we had become reduced in poverty and my wives father was about to turn me out of doores & I had not where to go and I cried unto the Lord that he would provide for me to accomplish the work whereunto he had commanded me.

History, circa Summer 1832, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/6 .

When Joseph’s parents visited Harmony in November 1828, Joseph told them that the messenger had returned the plates with the U&T in September 1828 and that Emma was then writing for him. (Some historians think they visited in September, but Lucy quotes Joseph referring back to September.) 

Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/142 

Lucy recalled that

For nearly two months after Joseph returned to his family in Pennsylvania we heard nothing from him; and becoming anxious about him, Mr. Smith [Joseph Smith Sr.] and myself set off to make him a visit….

when I entered his house the first thing that attracted … my attention was a red morocco trunk, that set on Emma’s bureau; which trunk Joseph shortly informed me, contained the Urim and Thummim and the plates….

[Lucy related Joseph’s account that] on the 22d of September, I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim; and have commenced translating again, and Emma writes for me; but the angel said that the Lord would send me a scribe, and <​I​> trust his promise will be verified. The angel He also seemed pleased with me, when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim; and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility.

Joseph separately reported that after he received the plates and U&T again, he “did not however go immediately to translating but went to laboring with my hands upon a small farm… to provide for my family.”

History, circa June 1839-circa 1841, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/13 , published in the Times and Seasons, 15 June 1842, p. 817, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-15-june-1842/3

It makes sense that Joseph did not resume translating immediately because he would need to work on the farm during the last week of September and most or all of October during the harvest and preservation season.

Note that in his history, Joseph mentions that his father visited in February 1829, which led to D&C 4, but Joseph does not mention the visit of his parents in November.

Another pre-Oliver scribe might have been Martin Harris, who visited Harmony in March 1829 and requested a revelation. The revelation (D&C 5) includes this comment about the translation.

29 And if this be the case, I command you, my servant Joseph, that you shall say unto him [Martin Harris], that he shall do no more, nor trouble me any more concerning this matter.

30 And if this be the case, behold, I say unto thee Joseph, when thou hast translated a few more pages thou shalt stop for a season, even until I command thee again; then thou mayest translate again.

This raises the possibility, or likelihood, that Martin resumed some scribal activity in March.

As the following references show, we can’t know how many pages Joseph dictated before Oliver arrived on April 5, 1829, partly because no one said what parts of the text they scribed and partly because the Original Manuscript is not extant prior to Alma 10:31 (which is in Oliver’s handwriting).

Without going into all of these sometimes conflicting historical sources in detail,22 here are the main documents relevant to this point:

  1. In 1832, speaking of the time before Oliver Cowdery received his vision and then came to Harmony “to write for me,” Joseph Smith personally recorded, “Now my wife had written some for me to translate and also my Brother Samuel H Smith.” How many pages they wrote is unknown, but apparently it was not very many—only “some”—and still not enough to “accomplish the work” as “commanded.”23

Emma and Samuel must have written “some” of the Book of Mosiah, but it’s impossible to know how much from this statement alone.

  1. Emma said in 1879 that Joseph Smith “would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off.”24 Unfortunately, as she describes his “usual” dictation practices she does not say when it was that he so dictated to her, or perhaps to others, or how many pages of text were created before or after the manuscript pages were lost.

As mentioned above, Emma apparently did write some of the text we have today, but we can’t know how much she wrote in Harmony or Fayette. The claim that she wrote “hour after hour” suggests considerably more work than just a handful of pages.

  1. Oliver said of the Book of Mormon to William Frampton (as recorded in 1901), “I wrote it (with the exception of a few pages) with this right hand (extending his hand) as the inspired words fell from the lips of Joseph Smith.”25 Apparently, those “few pages” would have included whatever pages were written by any other scribes at the Whitmer home in Fayette, New York, after Joseph’s arrival there about June 4, 1829, and also whatever pages were translated before April 7.

Frampton dated this letter September 15, 1901. He was recalling what Oliver Cowdery said in 1848. His recollection is similar to that of Reuben Miller, who recorded Oliver’s testimony contemporaneously. “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the prophet…” 

Obviously at least one of the accounts is not verbatim. Probably neither one is. Maybe Frampton had access to Miller’s journal, or met with Miller at some point to share recollections.

Surely Oliver knew exactly how many pages other scribes wrote, but apparently he did not quantify that in his statement. It’s unclear why both accounts put the “few pages” within parentheses. Maybe it was something Oliver said later, maybe Miller and Frampton inserted the parenthetical because they knew Oliver was not the only scribe, or maybe Oliver said “a few” in an apologetic sense, minimizing the contributions of the others scribes to bolster his own testimony and to respond to claims that Joseph composed the text.

At any rate, it’s impossible to specifically quantify “few pages.” The Book of Mosiah contains about 31,348 words, which is about 11.6% of the total word count of 269,320. All or some portion of that could be described as “a few” compared with the rest of the text.

  1. David Whitmer once said in 1878 that a “few pages” were written by Emma, John Whitmer, and Christian Whitmer.26 John and Christian would have written in June 1829, but it is uncertain what time David has in mind when he says that Emma wrote a few pages. He may be talking about translation during June 1829, but perhaps David had become aware that Emma and Samuel had written “some” for Joseph prior to April 7, well before David came to Harmony.

David was never in Harmony during the translation, so he was likely referring to pages Emma and his brothers wrote in Fayette. He had no first-hand knowledge of which scribes wrote what in Harmony, unless he analyzed the handwriting on the pages. But again, “few pages” is vague.

  1. Lucy Smith recalled in her 1844–1845 memoir, “Emma had so much of her time taken up with her [house] work that she could write but little for him.”27 

The link in the note is a page off. Here’s the correct link: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/96 

This part of Lucy’s history does not relate her personal experience but instead the experience of Oliver and Samuel when they went to Harmony in April 1829. Notice that this was a month after the Lord told Joseph to stop translating (D&C 5).

In her 1845 history, Lucy said it slightly differently; i.e., Emma "could write for him but a small portion of the time," which suggests that her previous statement--"write but little"--referred to the time she had instead of the number of pages she wrote.

Joseph had been so hurried with his secular affairs, that he could not proceed with his spiritual concerns as fast as was necessary for the speedy completion of the work— there was also another disadvantage under which he labored: Emma had so much of her time taken up with the care of her house, that she could write for him but a small portion of the time:— In consequence of these embarrassments Joseph called upon the [p. 143] Lord, three days previous to their arrival, to send him a scribe, according to the promise of the angel; and he was informed that the same should be forth coming in a few days. Accordingly, when Mr. Cowdery told him the business upon which he had come, Joseph was not at all <​surprized​>

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/150 

But Lucy gives no hint about what that “little” amount consisted of or when she thought Emma had done this writing. She may have been referring to pages that were written in the spring of 1828 and thus were among the lost manuscript pages or perhaps to pages written in the early months of 1829.

These are both possibilities, but Emma could also have been referring to her writing in November and December of 1828. And, as just shown, Lucy apparently referred to the amount of time Emma had, not the number of pages she wrote.

Lucy was present in Harmony for a winter visit in February 1829, and so she did not see much of Joseph’s activity during the months from the end of September 1828 to the beginning of April 1829 personally.

As we saw above, Lucy visited Joseph in November 1828. Had she not, she couldn’t have known that Joseph needed help. She specifically said they visited because “we heard nothing from him” and they were “becoming anxious about him.” She may have accompanied her husband in February also, but Joseph didn't mention her in his history.

But she was in contact with Joseph and was aware enough of his great need for scribal help, which is why she and others in the Smith family, when they met Oliver Cowdery and found him to be trustworthy, told Oliver of the plates and of Joseph’s great need for help.28

According to Lucy, Oliver actually “began to hear about the plates from all quarters” and asked JS Sr. about them, but Joseph’s father declined to discuss it “for a long time.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/92

  1. In March 1829, in a revelation, now found in Doctrine and Covenants 5, given to Martin Harris,29 Joseph was told to translate “a few more pages” and then to “stop for a season” (D&C 5:30). How much translation Joseph did before stopping is unknown.

Because the revelation was given at the request of Martin Harris, it seems reasonable to infer that Martin was acting as scribe in March 1829.  “I say unto thee Joseph, when thou hast translated a few more pages thou shalt stop for a season, even until I command thee again; then thou mayest translate again.” (Doctrine and Covenants 5:30)

We naturally wonder how Joseph would know when to stop translating. “A few more pages” is indeterminate, but more than one or two. Should he translate three more? Four? Five?

Presumably he would know when to stop because he would reach a milestone, such as the end of the Book of Mosiah. That would be a natural place to “stop for a season.”

Another reason to infer that Oliver did not scribe the Book of Mosiah is that when he copied the book for the Printer’s manuscript, he wrote “Helaman” instead of “Helam” and then later crossed out the last two letters. Because he was the scribe for the Book of Helaman, Oliver likely thought Emma (or another scribe) made a mistake by writing Helam. But then, perhaps after Joseph reviewed the Printers Manuscript, Oliver corrected the mistake.

Because we don’t have the OM for Helaman we can’t be sure about any of this, but it’s a factor to consider.

So how many pages of the original manuscript of the current Book of Mormon might have been written before Oliver Cowdery arrived on April 5? Of course, we do not know for sure. But the consistent use of the words “some,” “few,” and “little” leave the impression that not very many pages—perhaps as few as three or four—were written during those stressful, cold, dark, and needy months, when supplies were limited, visitors were frequent, and timber was being cut, although other farm chores may have been fewer than in the springtime.

Although our information is limited, the foregoing six statements are evidence that only a few pages of dictation were written between the summer of 1828 and April 1829.  

This assumption of “as few as three or four” doesn’t follow from the information we have. The Lord refers to “a few more pages” in addition to what Joseph had already translated. And as we’ve seen, Joseph resumed translating around November 1828. Adding “a few” to the “some,” “few,” or “little” he had already translated leads to a reasonable inference that Joseph had translated more than “a few” by the time Oliver arrived.   

…

Linking Translation Progress with Words in These Thirteen Revelations

It is interesting to connect these thirteen sections in the Doctrine and Covenants that were received in April, May, or June with the timing and sequence of the translation of passages in the Book of Mormon. Beyond the fact that receiving and recording these revelations took time, these revelations can be connected to the unfolding of words and phrases within the Book of Mormon itself. These correlations do not affect estimations of how long the translation took, but they do suggest a little more clearly approximate times when those revelations might have been received as well as when certain portions of the Book of Mormon were translated. For present purposes, these thirteen revelations have simply been positioned on the chart on days close to where some of their phrases connect with relatable Book of Mormon texts. This chronological coalescing happens fairly consistently and distinctively, offering a stream of interconnections.

Doctrine and Covenants 8 can be placed at about April 9, which is approximately the time of the translation of Mosiah 8. Both of those texts deal with the power to translate.54

It’s unclear why D&C 8 would be placed at about April 9, just two days after Oliver began working as a scribe. It seems more reasonable to infer that he would work with Joseph longer than two days before the Lord would encourage him to “ask… that you may translate.”

While Mosiah 8 does use the term “translate,” that isn’t a direct link to D&C 8. Perhaps Joseph and Oliver discussed the translation process and Joseph read Mosiah 8 to Oliver as part of his explanation. More likely they were translating Alma 37 (Gazelem and the directors) which led to Oliver wanting to translate. This makes sense because the only part of the Original Manuscript in Joseph’s handwriting is Alma 45:22, which would be the only part of the extant OM that Oliver could have translated (although some think Oliver just got tired at that point). D&C 9:5 points out that Oliver “began to translate” but “did not continue as [he] commenced.”

The phrases in Doctrine and Covenants 9, dated to around April 26, connect with words in Alma 11 or 40, which would have been translated around that date.55

For the same reasons mentioned above, D&C 9 is more likely to have postdated Alma 45:22.

Doctrine and Covenants 7 has been placed on May 21 because of possible connections to 3 Nephi 28.56 Doctrine and Covenants 7 deals with the Apostle John not tasting death. That question was most relevant to the blessing that Jesus gave to the Three Nephites that they would not taste death either.

The rest of the anchor dates seem reasonable to me.




at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Kno-why #431 - Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we'll do a peer review of Kno-Why #431. https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/where-...