More on Baja: highways "cast up"

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

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

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

The Book of Mormon refers to highways in one verse:

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

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

By employing an innovative interpretation to confirm their bias.

_____

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

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

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

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

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

The FAITH model starts with "Facts." 

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

As we will see in the video below.

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

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

(i) Oliver et al told the truth, or 

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

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

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

_____

Here's the transcript.

2.5 min.

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

Rosenvall: Yeah.

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

That's right.

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

Where does that come from?

Cuz it doesn't seem to match.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked AI about it.

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

The verse reads:

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

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

The Three Steps of Ancient Road Building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We see the same use of the term here. 

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

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

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

(Helaman 5:48)

This is a different context but also connotes looking upward.

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

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

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

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

None of this was brought up in the video.

But it should have been.

Reasoning in plainness and simplicity

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

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

against 

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

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

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

(Doctrine and Covenants 133:57)

Plainness and simplicity. 

Together.

Then...

Reasoning in plainness and simplicity.

_____

Paul spoke about plainness of speech:

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

Nephi spoke about plainness in more detail.

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

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

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

As plain as word can be...

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

_____

The Brant Gardner legacy

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

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

We'll go through the transcript in another post.

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification on the Rosenvall's Baja video

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

The "fact side" requires clarity and transparency.

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

Then, at 31:00, Rosenvall says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

Look at it again.

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

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

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

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

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

Cumorah and Baja

Thanks to the Stick of Joseph podcast episodes, I keep hearing about the "new" Baja theory of Book of Mormon geography. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR9iAsqVnmM

The Baja theory has been around for decades.

One of the fundamental premises of the Baja theory is that Oliver Cowdery lied about the location of Cumorah and Church leaders, including Joseph's contemporaries, taught this lie for decades.

People can believe whatever they want, of course. But the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding starts with clarity, so let's look at what the Baja theory proposes.

_____

Here is their explanation of Cumorah (blue) with my clarifying comments (red).

https://achoiceland.com/pdf/Approach.pdf

The Hill Cumorah 

Is there one hill Cumorah or are there two hills with the same name? 

This question has been the focus of many debates. 

There are not "many debates." The question is a simple binary: Do we accept or reject what the prophets have taught about Cumorah?

Like most controversial topics, it depends how one defines the subject of the dispute. 

Framing this as a definitional controversy is simply a rhetorical tactic for rejecting the teachings of the prophets in a way that obscures the underlying premise; i.e., the Baja theorists, like the M2Cers, reject Oliver Cowdery as a liar.

In this case, what does one mean by the name, hill Cumorah? 

There was one hill Cumorah at the time Mormon wrote his account. Namely, the hill where Mormon before his death deposited all the records in his care except for the gold plates which he give to his son Moroni (Morm. 6:6). 

The verse explains that Mormon abridged the Nephite records when he was at Cumorah. Moroni further explained to Joseph Smith, the first night they met, that the record "was written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home near Palmyra:

He [Moroni] said this history was written and deposited not far from that place [Joseph's home near Palmyra], and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

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

From this we can all see that Mormon wrote his account "not far from that place." This means Mormon and Moroni lived not far from Palmyra.

That hill was in what the Book of Mormon calls the land of Cumorah, in the land northward, a land not many days north of the land of Zarahemla (Morm. 1-6). 

The first part of the sentence aligns with the scriptures, but to say the land of Cumorah was "not many days north of the land of Zarahemla" contradicts the scriptures. 

First, the phrase "not many days" tells us nothing. In 82 BC, Alma said "not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory." Alma 9:26.

Second, the phrase "not many days" is not even used in Mormon 1-6.

Third, Mormon 1-6 records decades of retreat from the land of Zarahemla toward Cumorah.

The land of Cumorah is where the final battle between the Lamanites and Nephites was waged and the Jaredite civilization was destroyed. The Jaredites called the hill Cumorah the hill Ramah (Ether 15:11). 

Oliver Cowdery, writing as Assistant President of the Church with the assistance of Joseph Smith, described it this way, referring to the hill in New York:

This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: by it, or around it pitched the famous army of Coriantumr their tents.... 

In this same spot, in full view from the top of this same hill, one may gaze with astonishment upon the ground which was twice covered with the dead and dying of our fellow men. ... 

In this vale lie commingled, in one mass of ruin the ashes of thousands, and in this vale was destined to consume the fair forms and vigerous systems of tens of thousands of the human race—blood mixed with blood, flesh with flesh, bones with bones and dust with dust!

 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/91

In our proposal we place the general location of this hill and its surrounding battle grounds in northern Baja California and not in the State of New York. 

Whereas the prophets have unambiguously placed Cumorah in New York. Hence the simple binary: Do we accept or reject what the prophets have taught about Cumorah? 

There was only one hill Cumorah at the time the Prophet Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon plates. That is, the hill in the land of Cumorah where the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations were destroyed. 

That seems plain to every reader of the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the prophets.

The hill where Moroni deposited the gold plates, near the village of Manchester in New York, is not the same hill as the hill Cumorah where his father Mormon buried all the records of the Nephite history, except for the few plates that were given to Moroni (Morm. 6:6). 

This is mere assumption, not supported by the text or any teachings of the prophets. Instead, the statement directly contradicts the teachings of the prophets.

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.

By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon (Mormon 6) you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. In this valley fell the remaining strength and pride of a once powerful people, the Nephites...

 From the top of this hill, Mormon, with a few others, after the battle, gazed with horror upon the mangled remains of those who, the day before, were filled with anxiety, hope or doubt

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

The Prophet Joseph Smith described the hill near his home only as a “hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood” (JSH 1:51). 

JS-History was written for a general audience who would not know what Cumorah referred to unless they had read the Book of Mormon (or Joseph's journal, or the Times and Seasons, or the Millennial Star, or the Gospel Reflector, or the Messenger and Advocate, all of which republished the Letter VII account of Cumorah).

In his history, the Prophet Joseph Smith did not call this hill, the hill Cumorah, nor did Moroni.

The excerpts above, which declare it is a fact that the hill in New York is the hill Cumorah/Ramah, is from Joseph Smith's journal, as anyone can see from clicking on the link. 

Joseph did not even write Joseph Smith-History in the first place. It was his scribes who compiled it, which is why they originally wrote that it was Nephi who visited Joseph, not Moroni. 

See https://www.lettervii.com/p/moroni-and-nephi.html.

There are other accounts of Moroni calling the hill in New York Cumorah. 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

For more, see https://www.mobom.org/cumorah-overview

Sometime later, members started calling the Manchester hill, the hill Cumorah, and that name has indelibly entered into our language, most likely to stay. 

This claim contradicts the historical record, as we can all see from Lucy Mack Smith's account, as well as David Whitmer's account of the messenger who took the abridged plates to Cumorah in 1829. 

In the interest of clarity, the authors should at least alert their readers that President Cowdery formally explained it was a fact that Cumorah/Ramah is the hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates and that Joseph's contemporaries and successors in Church leadership repeatedly reaffirmed that fact.

It would have been far less confusing if it had been given a name such as Manchester Hill (the village it is near), Moroni’s Hill, or Mormon Hill. Some residents in the area have called it Mormon Hill.

There is nothing confusion about what the prophets have taught. Intellectuals, including the Baja advocates, have sought to generate confusion by ignoring the teachings of the prophets. They are successful to the extent they mislead their followers by omitting the teachings of the prophets as they have here.

Today there is still only one actual hill Cumorah, the hill in the area where the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations were destroyed. 

Mormon describes the hill Cumorah as being in the land of Cumorah, a “land of many waters, rivers and fountains” (Morm. 6:4). 

Compare Mormon's description with the photo of Baja.

Mormon chose this land for their last battle with the Lamanites because he hoped that there they would gain an “advantage over the Lamanites” (Morm. 6:4). The nature of this “advantage” is not stated in the account. 

We can reasonably infer that Mormon chose Cumorah because he knew the Jaredites had fortified it and had a bunker where he could hide the Nephite records.

Four years were spent gathering the Nephite people to the land of Cumorah; and some 230,000 Nephite men, women and children were killed in the final battle. 

The record does not say the Nephites gathered people for 4 years. In the 380th year, the Lamaanites "did come again" (Mormon 5:6). Mormon explains that "we did again take to flight, and those whose flight was swifter than the Lamanites’ did escape, and those whose flight did not exceed the Lamanites’ were swept down and destroyed."

Rather than explain the details of what ensued and for how long, Mormon writes "And now behold, I, Mormon, do not desire to harrow up the souls of men in casting before them such an awful scene of blood and carnage as was laid before mine eyes" (Mormon 5:7–8).

After writing to the future Gentiles, Mormon explains that the Nephites marched before the Lamanites and then, after writing to the king of the Lamanites, Mormon gathered his people and they "did pitch our tents around the hill Cumorah."

It is important for the credibility of the Book of Mormon to recognize that the 230,000 number is not required by the text. Prior to Cumorah, the largest enumerated army of the Nephites was only 42,000 in 327 (Mormon 2:9). By 346, Mormon's army was down to 30,000 (Mormon 2:25). The term "ten thousand" in Mormon 6 is obviously a military unit, not an enumerated number. And the text says only that Mormon could see two military units from Cumorah: his and Moroni's. 

See the discussions here: https://www.lettervii.com/p/cumorah-and-population-numbers.html

This is all consistent with what President Cowdery wrote, as well as the archaeological record.

Only 24 of their number survived, including Mormon and his son Moroni. The next morning Mormon and others ascended the hill Cumorah to survey the scene of destruction below (Morm. 8:2-11). The survivors, including Mormon, were killed by the Lamanites; and Moroni remained to record these last events (Morm. 8:2). 

All accurate.

The Book of Mormon account says the hill Cumorah is near the hill Shim in the land northward. And the hill Shim is where Ammaron deposited the Nephite records that Mormon later retrieved (Morm. 1:3; 4:23; Ether 9:3). We don’t know the precise locations of these two hills, but in our proposal we indicate a possible setting within northern Baja California. 

We do know the precise location of Cumorah if we believe the prophets.

There are hills in this area with features that match the geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon. 

Every proposed Book of Mormon geography has "features that match," by definition, including Malaysia, Eritrea, Peru, M2C, Panama, Tasmania, and Baja. That's why the first question to answer is whether we accept or reject what the prophets have taught.

Someday we may be able to identify the exact location of the hill Cumorah and the hill Shim. 

That "someday" is every day if we accept the prophets.

And someday we may know more about how Moroni transferred the plates in his care to the hill near Manchester, New York.

That "someday" is every day if we accept the prophets.

The name Cumorah is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 128:20. It is not clear if the name refers to the land of Cumorah, or the hill Cumorah, or if it is a general term for the lands where Mormon and Moroni penned the glad tidings of the Book of Mormon record.   

When people actually read D&C 128:20, they see that Moroni told Joseph about Cumorah before Joseph ever got the plates:

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.

(Doctrine and Covenants 128:20)

That verse corroborates what President Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, and many others taught about the New York Cumorah.

_____

Comment on the Stick of Joseph video:

@HawaiiGambit

8 hours ago

The same date palms, flora, and seeds found in Baja, CA around Spanish Missions are found in Florida. Brought also by Spanish Priests that set up Missions

7

@rcmonks

48 minutes ago

Date palms in Florida are not productive of fruit. They need drier air.

@HawaiiGambit

4 minutes ago

 @rcmonks . The point isn’t whether they were viable or not, but that Spanish Missionaries brought them in the 1500’s. In their last video they speculated that Missionaries only brought them to Mainland Mexico and not Baja, but that’s not what the historical data shows. The same species in Florida and Baja are related to Middle Eastern species, brought to Northern Africa, then to Spain and on to the New World. Dates in Baja is hardly evidence for Lehi landing there