Part 2 - Baja, sophistry, Cumorah and Baja propagandizing channel (Stick of Joseph) Part 2

This is part 2 of our analysis of a podcast by Stick of Joseph purporting to analyze Cumorah from the perspective of the Baja theory of geography. 

Part 1 is here: https://www.lettervii.com/2026/08/baja-sophistry-cumorah-and-baja.html

In this installment we show how Rosenvall and the Stick of Joseph edited Letter VII to omit Oliver Cowdery's statement that it was a fact that Cumorah is in New York.

It is amazing, incredible, and pure sophistry.

Here's the link to the podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFpw-kcMBjQ

We are commenting on the transcript of the podcast.

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

We pick up where part 1 ended:

[7:58]
So here’s what I started doing. And And we won’t go through in every detail, but I want you to see this. I went through and I’m trying to find every quote and I started with the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor. What did they say about this?

The table includes references to geography in general, not to Cumorah, which was the purported topic of this podcast.

End of Part 1.

The first thing to notice in this podcast is how they have largely abandoned the discussion of Cumorah, which was supposedly the point of the podcast. 

They used "Cumorah" mainly as clickbait, unfortunately.

But we will address the points they made anyway because viewers deserve to see how the "documentary effect" works by advocating a position using sophistry, misdirection and obfuscation.

The earliest I can get from Joseph Smith is actually in a letter that he wrote that says "the Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of the western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants of Joseph that was sold in Egypt. And that the land of America is a promised land unto them." 

The part they quoted is an accurate excerpt from the Noah Saxton letter, which is available here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-noah-c-saxton-4-january-1833-as-published-in-american-revivalist-and-rochester-observer/1

And here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-noah-c-saxton-4-january-1833/4

The following part of the podcast is commentary.

So that has to be all of North and South America. 

This is merely an assumption by the Baja theorists. As we'll see, it not only does not "have to be" but it cannot be "all of North and South America."

Recall that earlier in their presentation (covered in Part 1 of this blog) they spent a lot of time discussing the term "continent," even referring to the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Viewers might wonder why they did not do that for "land of America." We can see why when we look at the 1828 Webster's definition for "land," which includes these options:

2. Any portion of the solid, superficial part of the globe, whether a kingdom or country, or a particular region. The United States is denominated the land of freedom.  

3. Any small portion of the superficial part of the earth or ground. We speak of the quantity of land in a manor. Five hundred acres of land is a large farm.

6. The inhabitants of a country or region; a nation or people.

None of these suggest "continent" or "hemisphere." Instead, "land" refers specifically to a nation or people.

The term "land of America" shows up in only three places in the Joseph Smith Papers. Besides the Noah Saxton letter, it is in an 1834 proclamation by the First Presidency regarding the United States, found here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/525

Readers can decide whether this term refers to "all of North and South America" or to the United States as it existed at the time. Consider these excerpts:

Our forefathers came to the goodly land of America, to shun persecution and enjoy their religious opinions and rights, as they thought proper;

The "forefathers" to whom Joseph referred were not Spanish or Portuguese, whose explorers were not fleeing persecution and religious freedom. 

Earlier the Proclamation explained

whereas the said church, by revelation, commenced removing to the western boundaries of the state of Missouri, where lands were purchased of the government, and where it was calculated to purchase of those who were unwilling to reside with the church as a society, all lands that could be bought, for the purpose of building up a holy city unto God, a New Jerusalem, a place which were desirous to call Zion,... To be obedient to the commandments of our Lord and Savior, some of the leaders of the Church commenced purchasing lands in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, according to the revelations of God, for the city of Zion... We verily believe, knowing that the national and State Constitutions, and the statute laws of the land, and the commandments of the Lord allowed all men to worship as they pleased— that we should be protected, not only by all the law of a free republic, but by every republican throughout the realms of freedom... The Book of Mormon, which we hold equally sacred with the Bible, says, “that a new Jerusalem shall be built up on this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for the which things there has been a type.”... but the inhabitants of Jackson county arrayed themselves against us, because of our faith and belief, and destroyed of our printing establishment, to prevent the spread of the work, and drove men, women, and children from their lands, houses and homes...

 After referring to the "land of America," the proclamation continues.

and the Lord, after much tribulation, blessed them, and has said that we should continue to importune for redress and redemption by the hands of those who are placed as rulers, and are in authority over us, according to the laws and constitution of the people, which he has suffered to be established and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles...and for this purpose he has established the constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom he raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Now we seek peace, and ask our rights, even redress and redemption, at the hands of the rulers of this nation: not only our lands and property in Jackson county, but for free trade with all men, and unmolested emigration to any part of the Union,...

In my view, it could hardly be clearer that the "land of America" in this proclamation refers to the United States. And this was written only a year after the Noah Sexton letter.

But the Baja proponents ignore this proclamation (and the Webster's dictionary) and instead tell their readers that the phrase "land of America" means the western hemisphere.

Returning to the podcast.

So the western tribes there it’s I mean it’s not because, here’s what the heart, a heartlander would say. They’d be like, “Oh, it’s a western tribes of the colonies at that point or of America states of what America was.” So it’s like we’re talking about Ohio. That’s how they would normally read it.

Yes, this is how Noah Saxton, who published the letter in Rochester, NY, would have read it. The tribes in Ohio were west of New York.

This is also how anyone reading the Proclamation would have read the term "land of America" given the references to the Constitution and the states.

But instead of informing their audience of this, the podcasters try to confuse their audience by claiming this is all ambiguous because the term "western tribe" can mean anyone living in the "western hemisphere."

But with this context of on the land of America you have this whole thing, that’s right, right? And it is the western hemisphere. It’s a western tribe. So it isn’t unambiguous. There is another way you can look at it other than that.

Absolutely.

We all like multiple working hypotheses, but there has to be a rational basis for any hypothesis, and claiming that the term "land of America" in this historical and linguistic context actually means the western hemisphere is not rational or plausible.

In the Noah Saxton letter, Joseph referred to "our western tribes of Indians." Looking at North America as a whole, Ohio is east, not west, and well north of Central and South America. Ohio is only "west" of the eastern US.

Not to mention, none of this is relevant to the Cumorah question anyway.

And it’s going to be difficult for us today to put ourselves into their lenses, but we got to do our best to try to understand that.

If we are going to do our best to understand this, we should at least consider (and tell viewers) how they used the terminology.

So just using Joseph Smith quotes I’ve got some things that talk about actually the Rocky Mountains. You’ve got Zelph all those 

Zelph is an interesting one because we don’t have anything that Joseph Smith wrote about Zelph. It that’s a second hand one. And we’re going to use second hand

But there’s more all There’s

Yeah, there’s about 12 Zelf accounts. So,

So, it’s it’s likely that he said that.

Absolutely.

So, I’m just putting pins.

When I started using the term "pin in the map" years ago, I referred specifically to only those two pins that are found in the scriptures: Cumorah and Zarahemla. Of those, Cumorah is certain, while Zarahemla is interpretive. That's why I characterized my analysis as a hypothesis.

But none of the pins on this map are placed over Cumorah.

The podcast has completely abandoned the Cumorah issue at this point.

There’s obviously some things that he said about Central America. I think

Can we see what those Can we go back to those I want to see.
For sure.

[9:55]
All of these American continents, Central America. Let’s see. An unsigned editorial published in the Times and Seasons. Okay, so that’s that’s the one the Times and Seasons one. Um and then okay, cool. So, yeah, the Times and Seasons one and obviously like a heartland position on that. Jonathan Neville wrote a whole book on it uh saying that Joseph Smith didn’t actually approve of the Times and Seasons. Like he wasn’t an actually active editor on it that time. So, that’s how some people would understand it. Um but it is interesting that you’re seeing these multiple

But again, if we want to use that second-hand account allow for Zelf
Yeah.
I mean, Joseph Smith didn’t edit those either.
Yep.
And so,
I want to be as inclusive as possible in carving out one
True.
the other. Does that make sense?
Yeah.

We’ve got to be inclusive.

This is all fine--we all want to consider all the available historical sources--but none of this relates to Cumorah. I'm not going to spend much time on all of this because the distinction between Cumorah and Book of Mormon geography has been clear from the outset, as I discussed here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/book-of-mormon-geography-essay.html

I assume everyone recognizes that knowing Cumorah/Ramah is in New York does not determine the geographical setting of other Book of Mormon sites. But the Cumorah/Ramah "pin in the map" does prevent wild speculation and conjecture. And, as Oliver Cowdery pointed out long ago, it removes the Book of Mormon from the realm of fiction (such as the Solomon Spalding theory).

Um so, I included those ones. So, those are just a few that Joseph Smith laid down, the plains of the Nephite there. He talked about South America as well being a part of the Book of Mormon lands. That’s why I put a pin down there. Brigham Young said similar things. The land of Joseph is the land of Zion and it takes North and South America to make the land of Joseph.

We all expect them to tell viewers what Brigham Young said about Cumorah. They did not do so here, so let's see if they do so later in the podcast.

Mhm.

And so, he also included one about Manti, Utah. That this The reason they built the Manti Temple there was because he had said that this is where Moroni had dedicated. So, we’ve got Manti, Utah in this as well.

come from a first-hand account or is that second-hand?
So, that comes from President Snow, not the president of the church, but stake stake president down there that he had pulled him aside and said, “Hey, the reason this was here is because Moroni dedicated this.”
Interesting.

[11:40]
John Taylor, another prophet, “Cities have been discovered by Mr. Stephens in Central America exactly where the Book of Mormon left them.” Again, in in 1842-43, this Dr. Stephen has put out this book talking about ruins, and I’m sure they’re excited. And so, again, more pins on the map of where this took place.

First, when John Taylor wrote that, he was not the prophet. Second, Taylor joined the Church in 1836 after meeting Parley P. Pratt in Canada and he adopted the Pratt brothers' views about the setting of the Book of Mormon. Third, this speculation about geography has nothing to do with Cumorah.

So, those are the prophets. And if you remember, we were, In my map, we kind of use the prophets first, and now we’re going to go look at apostles.

They don't explain the logic of quoting statements by apostles who later became President as having a higher priority over other apostles. Nor do they explain why Taylor and others who never lived in New York would have any personal knowledge of the matter.

Okay.

So, Oliver Cowdery seems to be the one that everyone kind of, This is what we’re going to use to figure this out with Cumorah. Oliver Cowdery’s unique because this is the earliest mention of anything geographic that we can find. And so, when Oliver Cowdery went to Ohio, he met with a newspaper journalist, and they wrote an article.

This is already misleading because Oliver did not go alone, as the article makes plain.

And this is from that article.

it was published.
Right after it was published. 18th November 1830. So, this is literally 7 months after the church is organized.

And it says this, “This new revelation” In this, we’re talking about the Book of Mormon. “They, Oliver Cowdery, say is especially designed for the benefit, or rather for this Christianas Christianize of the aborigines of America, who, as they affirm, are part of the tribe of Manasseh, and whose ancestor landed on the coast of Chile 600 years before the coming of Christ. And from them descended all the Indians of America.”

Notice how they inserted "Oliver Cowdery" into this newspaper by using brackets to qualify the collective "they." The original article does not quote Oliver specifically.

An objective podcast host would ask why Rosenvall inserted Oliver's name here.

We can infer that the reason is to raise doubts about Oliver's credibility, as the Baja advocates must do to justify their geographical theory, as we'll see below.

Regardless of Rosenvall's intent, this slide is deceptive. At most, we can say that Oliver was among the group that was interviewed. But also among that group was Parley P. Pratt, who with his brother Orson promoted the Chile landing.

On top of that, all we have is a critical newspaper article, which is hearsay. It does not even purport to be a direct quotation of what the missionaries said.

Oliver was one of the four missionaries to the Lamanites (D&C 28, 30, 32), which were the tribes in Ohio and Missouri which Joseph referred to as "our western tribes." It should not be surprising that Joseph explained the Book of Mormon was written by the ancestors of these tribes when the Lord had explained, "I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them." (Doctrine and Covenants 28:8) 

The podcasters mention none of this.

So, you can see there are a lot of elements of this all of North and South America.

And so, he also went on to say, you know, “Generally, the Americas are where the people are.”

It is unclear to what this refers. 

The next slide shows excerpts from Oliver Cowdery.

He obviously in letter seven, and this is what it says, “I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round. At about 1 mile west rises another ridge of less height running parallel with the former leaving a beautiful veil between. Here between these hills the entire power and nation’s strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.” That’s in letter seven and I think that’s the basic premises I can understand.

This may be the most deceptive and dishonest part of the entire podcast and the hosts just let it go. 

We have to zoom in on the slide to see what he did here. It's odd that they bolded Oliver's statement "I think" which related to whether this is the highest hill, but presumably Rosenvall and Stick of Joseph want people to assume Oliver was merely speculating about Cumorah.

(click to enlarge)

Notice the ellipses.

Below is the actual quotation from Letter VII, taken from Joseph Smith's journal, with the part the podcast omitted in bold, and the most critical part they omitted shown in bold red.

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.

As we'll see in Part 3, the podcast only gets worse from here.

Baja, sophistry, Cumorah and Baja propagandizing channel (Stick of Joseph) Part 1

As I've said before, the Stick of Joseph has been one of my favorite LDS podcasts. The Paul brothers are smart, engaging and open to new ideas. Great guys all around.

And as readers here know, I'm cool with multiple working hypotheses. I have no problem whatsoever with people believing in a Baja setting, a Meso setting, a Peru setting, a Thailand setting, any of the various Heartland settings, etc. 

But I'm not cool with misleading audiences.

That's why I follow the FAITH model of analysis, which starts with Facts and separates Facts from Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and ultimately hypotheses.

The pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding starts with Clarity for a similar reason. Discussions and analysis are pointless when people are unclear from the outset and when they mingle facts with their own assumptions, inferences, etc. And the main reason why people mingle facts with their own assumptions and inferences is to promote an agenda, not to educate people or help them make informed decisions.

_____

About a month ago Stick of Joseph released a podcast purporting to discuss the Hill Cumorah. I welcomed this topic because I had discussed the Cumorah issue with the Paul brothers in relation to the Baja theory and I hoped they would do an episode on the topic.

Because of other commitments I didn't have a chance to watch/hear this podcast until now.

And I was surprised, if not shocked, to see how they manipulated the historical record, commingled different topics, and ended up in a deep excursion into assumptions and inferences, all to promote their Baja theory.

As they point out in the podcast, they've received a lot of pushback against the Baja theory. If anything, this podcast should add to the pushback they've received.

At one point, they say "People are not calling us the Stick of Joseph anymore, but the Baja Peninsula Book of Mormon Theory Propagandizing Channel."

That's pretty accurate, unfortunately.

Hopefully the Paul brothers will someday rethink this approach and revert to their more solid fact-based podcasts.

Here's the link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFpw-kcMBjQ

The TLDR version is this:

1. They purport to discuss all the historical references to Cumorah, but instead they discuss (and dismiss) a handful and ignore most of the most relevant ones.

2. They quickly divert the audience attention away from Cumorah to the various theories of Book of Mormon geography, which is a separate topic, and they misrepresent some of the key sources they represent even on that topic.

3. They spend most of the video discussing the Baja theory based on the subjective assumptions, inferences, and interpretations that the Rosenvalls developed to promote their Baja theory.

To avoid confusion, I'm annotating the transcript below. See what you think.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

_____

1:171 Welcome everybody to another episode on the Stick of Joseph YouTube channel. Now we have David Rosenval again and David Rosenval has caused quite a stir on the Stick of Joseph and many of you have watched his previous videos. If you haven't, you can still start with this one, but I would recommend watching the other ones. Today we're talking about something that has been more controversial uh and a question that has popped up consistently on his previous videos.

Exactly. And we're joined in the studio not only by David but by Jay Davis. Love your smiling face. Back again. Just a joyous countenance he has.

David, here’s what we got going on here. People are not calling us the Stick of Joseph anymore, but the Baja Peninsula Book of Mormon Theory Propagandizing Channel.

[laughter]

Sorry about that.

It's cool that they think this is funny, but this looks like a Freudian slip. This channel has been promoting Baja heavily, to the point of avoiding criticism of the Baja theory and now to the point of manipulating historical sources to mislead their audience.

All right. A lot of people think that we’re leading people astray with this, but uh, we have a topic today that I think is going to uh, tackle head-on a lot of the gripes that people that aren’t fans of this Book of Mormon geography model yet, uh, have.

The Baja bias is evidence by the fact that they have a Baja-promoter to "tackle head-on" the problems with his own theory. That's like a judge permitting only the prosecution to present a case while forcing the defense to listen in silence. Another term for this is the documentary effect, which is how a documentary film maker can lead audiences to believe whatever he/she wants by selective editing, omitting contrary evidence, etc. The structure of this podcast is like watching Mormon Stories for a comprehensive understanding of the Restoration.

And so, a lot of feedback that we’ve gotten from people that specifically believe that the Book of Mormon took place in the heartland, uh, of the, uh, American continent is that your model requires the hill in upstate New York to not be the Hill Cumorah as has been referenced as from people, uh, like Oliver Cowdery saying in letter seven that it is a fact that the Book of Mormon that the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York is the Hill Cumorah from the Book of Mormon text.

Exactly. This is what we hoped the Stick of Joseph would deal with here. But instead of doing so, they presented a series of straw man logical fallacies, as we'll see.

Um, and many other people. And so, help us understand, how do you how do you deal with this? And what’s your, uh, explanation for, by what authority are you teaching these things? So, take take us through this. Take us through this.

[3:13]
I have no authority to declare this, but let me just tell you a little bit about it. It’s been interesting. Obviously, the comments have clearly been where’s Hill Cumorah? And why haven’t you put it in New York? And when I first started presenting this to people, I had no idea that there was this question.

This is what happens when people start with finding a location they like and then interpreting the text to fit instead of starting with what we know from unambiguous historical accounts.

And I remember almost every time I did a presentation, someone said, “Well, what about Cumorah? Like, what about Cumorah?” And so, what I actually did, uh, because I was unfamiliar with it, I wanted to get a better sense of what early Saints were saying about where they thought the Book of Mormon was.

Right here, he has conflated the issue of Cumorah with the separate issue of geography. These are completely separate topics, involving different people, different historical evidence, and different assumptions.

And so, I started a database that took every quote I could find, what location were they saying it, when did they say it? and then I started putting pins.

And so, I want to go through that process with you cuz I I really want to understand what was this early Saints understanding of geography cuz I think that’s really at the core of this whole premise is they said this, therefore it has to be.

Everyone who has looked into the topic of geography knows there are widely diverse opinions, each based on a subjective interpretation of the text. But none of that involves the core question of Cumorah.

We okay to go through that?

[4:15] [advertisement deleted]

[4:51]

Let’s um I just want to pull out a few scriptures and historical things. This is from Joseph Smith history when Moroni uh first presented to Joseph Smith, there’s a record that uh you’re going to translate. And he told him a little bit. So, this is the very first geography point that I think we have.

It says this, “Moroni said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates giving account of the former inhabitants of this continent and the source from which they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting gospel was contained in it as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants.”

The first thing to notice is that he put brackets around [Moroni]. That's because the verse starts with "he," referring to the previous verse:

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

(Joseph Smith—History 1:33)

But when this passage was first published in the Times and Seasons, it claimed "his name was Nephi."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-15-april-1842/3

We can see that this came from Howard Coray's drafts, here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/5

and here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-draft-draft-3/6

The note in the JSP on Nephi is useful:

A later redaction in the hand of Albert Carrington changed “Nephi” to “Moroni” and noted that the original attribution was a “clerical error.” Carrington probably made the note in 1871, at a time when he was Church Historian and Recorder. He and others at the Historian’s Office were assigned by Brigham Young to investigate the difference of the name of the angel in this source compared with other sources. Early sources often did not name the angelic visitor, but sources naming Moroni include Oliver Cowdery’s historical letter published in the April 1835 LDS Messenger and Advocate; an expanded version of a circa August 1830 revelation, as published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and a JS editorial published in the Elders’ Journal in July 1838. The present history is the earliest extant source to name Nephi as the messenger, and subsequent publications based on this history perpetuated the attribution during JS’s lifetime.

The point is that parsing the language of Joseph Smith-History is problematic because it is not Joseph's language. His scribes compiled the history and, to the extent he reviewed it, he did not review it carefully enough to catch an obvious error such as this.

Note also that the JSP referred to Oliver's Letter IV as the earliest source to identify Moroni.

So, Moroni is the first one that’s going to kick off this geography question and debate with the concept of this continent. 

Now Rosenvall is going to try to confuse the audience by conflating "geography" with the Cumorah question.

And I don’t know if people know this, but the word continent um is one of those words that I think has changed over time. And I want to just take a moment and just point this out.

Joseph Smith in the Articles of Faith actually referenced this whole concept. He said we believe in the little literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the 10 tribes that Zion, the New Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent.

The Articles of Faith are extracted from the Wentworth Letter. Rosenvall misquotes it here. Originally the passage read "That Zion will be built upon this continent." (Times and Seasons III.9:710 ¶2) Later versions modified the language to read "built upon the American continent."

Had the Stick of Joseph podcast been interested in a serious analysis, they would have pointed this out or they would have had someone who was familiar enough with he sources to point this out.

What's worse, Rosenvall forgot to point out another aspect of the Wentworth letter. When Joseph wrote that letter (he actually signed it), he adapted it from an 1840 Orson Pratt pamphlet. Orson spent several paragraphs speculating about the people in Central America. Joseph replaced Orson's speculation with the simple statement that "The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country." (Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶7)

For a side-by-side comparison, see https://www.mobom.org/wentworth-orson-pratt

That passage is actually in Rosenvall's chart that he displays, but he ignores it. Instead, they are focusing on one line in the Wentworth letter that refers to where the New Jerusalem will be built while they are ignoring that Joseph said the "remnant" of the Nephites "now inhabit this country."

This is not a serious way to "tackle head-on" the topic of Cumorah.

That Christ will reign personally upon the earth and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. So, clearly Joseph Smith

to correct I have to correct you. It’s paradisiacal. I got I got slammed for this not too long ago and I and I learned I learned I said it on YouTube and everybody in the comments was like it’s paradisiacal.
You don’t want that. I was giving you the sweetest Canadian version. That was the
[laughter]
Sorry about that. I’m learning.

This is an entertaining exchange, but it presents the hosts as sort of "fact-checking" the Baja theory when they are doing everything but fact-checking.

[6:31]
So, here we have this concept of a continent and specifically the American continent.

Do not listeners recognize they switched horses between JS-H and the Article of Faith? And that they misquoted the Articles of Faith anyway? Why don't the Paul brothers point this out?

I think most people when they hear that they go United States. But let me just pull out some definitions from the 1828 Webster dictionary. I think this is a good place to use that. So, continent in geography a great extent of land not disjoint or interrupted by a sea, a connected tract of land of great extent as the Eastern and Western continent. So, let me just stop here. In in 1832, do you know how many continents there were in the world?

know about tectonic plates.
Exactly right.

Okay, that makes sense. So, it was literally just like the East had a big bunch of land that was connected. The West had a big bunch of land that was connected. We didn’t know that there was tectonic divides and all that sort of stuff.

So, there were only five continents. Whereas today in school you’ll find out we talk about seven. Okay? So, the other one, what was America back then in their minds? America was one of the great continents. Not the United States.

As we just saw, they ignored what Joseph said about the Indians in "this country."

And it's worse than that, actually. We just saw how the Church went back to Oliver Cowdery's Letter IV to correct the error in Joseph Smith - History that confused Moroni and Nephi.

If we look at that same Letter IV, we can see more clearly what Moroni told Joseph Smith that first night.

He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightned and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68

Here, in the first detailed account of Moroni's visit, written by Oliver with the assistance of Joseph and copied into Joseph's own journal at his direction (and republished multiple times during Joseph's lifetime), we see Moroni using the same phrase, "this country," that Joseph reprised in the Wentworth letter. 

Obviously, there is no inconsistency for Joseph's scribes to write "this continent" instead of "this country" because "this country" is a subset of "this continent." But to ignore the other sources and refer to the dictionary to interpret what Joseph's scribes meant when they wrote "this continent" in JS-H is not only poor scholarship, but deeply misleading to viewers.

And so, it’s important to know that back in 1838 they considered the American continent North and South America.

As we just saw, "American continent" is a term added by modern editors, not the term in the original Articles of Faith. And JS-H did not use the term "American continent." 

And that’s where they started from their mindset. And that according to Moroni the Book of Mormon happened on this continent.

People can debate what the scribes meant by the term, but viewers of this podcast have no idea of what is going on here because they are being presented only one set of assumptions and interpretations without even the basic facts.

America.

[7:58]
So here’s what I started doing. And And we won’t go through in every detail, but I want you to see this. I went through and I’m trying to find every quote and I started with the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor. What did they say about this?

The table includes references to geography in general, not to Cumorah, which was the purported topic of this podcast.

End of Part 1.

Casey Griffiths fumbles on Cumorah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next excerpt is where Jeff brings up Cumorah.

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

Casey - Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what does the text actually say?

I have a detailed discussion of this topic here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff - So, is this the same Hill Cumorah? 

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

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

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

Casey - Yeah.

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

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

Casey - that was a long question.

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

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

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

Jeff - Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff - Interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:07:48

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey - that's the discourse, right? 

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

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

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

Jeff - and he's on the run.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff - Yes.

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

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

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

Jeff - We do. 

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

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

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

Jeff - Sure.

_____

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

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

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

Fixing Cumorah, one step at a time

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

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

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

Millions of visitors saw this display, including impressionable kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've discussed this in detail here: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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