M2C impact on Church history

Here are three issues in Church history that are obstacles for people because the prevailing narratives make the truth claims about events in Church history less credible. This is a serious problem for the youth, for investigators (friends) and for less-active members.

There are solid answers, based on historical evidence, that LDS scholars ignore or reject mainly because of M2C.

1. The plates. There are a lot of inconsistencies about the plates. Here are a few.

-Martin Harris said that only he, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith ever saw the original plates.
- Witnesses said the plates weighed 30 pounds others said 60 pounds.
- The Eight Witnesses said they handled the plates but none of them said any portion was sealed.
- A divine messenger took the original plates to Cumorah before meeting Joseph in Fayette and giving him the plates of Nephi to translate.

None of this can be explained by the prevalent narrative that there was only one set of plates, and that Moroni hauled this set of plates 2400+ miles north from southern Mexico.

LDS intellectuals will tell you to put these questions "on the shelf" because they reject what two of the three witnesses said about the Hill Cumorah.

There is an answer to these inconsistencies.

Joseph Smith translated the original plates in Harmony and gave them to the messenger before leaving for Fayette. The messenger took those plates to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah, found the plates of Nephi (to replace the lost 116 pages), and brought those to Fayette so Joseph and Oliver could translate what we know today as 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

You can see the diagram here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

Simple. But because it contradicts M2C, you'll never hear about it from our LDS intellectuals.

2. The translation process. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (as well as the revelations in the D&C) consistently said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by using the Urim and Thummim, or Nephite translators that had been prepared for that purpose. Moroni put them in the stone box so Joseph could use them.

However, several witnesses said Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (after the 116 pages were lost) by reading words off a stone he put in a hat.

In terms of truth claims, the stone-in-a-hat scenario is obviously a far cry from Joseph actually translating the engravings on the plates using instruments prepared by the Lord for that purpose.

There are three ways to resolve this inconsistency.

A. We can say Joseph and Oliver used the term "Urim and Thummim" to apply to any device used for translation, including both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone Joseph found in a well years earlier. Church historians (and Church publications and web pages, including the Gospel Topics Essay) now teach that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the stone-in-a-hat technique. They teach that Joseph didn't even use the plates after all, but that they were always covered in a cloth or even outdoors. Because they believe Joseph didn't even use the plates, they can't explain how Joseph knew the Title Page was the last leaf of the plates, or why the Lord told Joseph he would have to translate the plates of Nephi (D&C 10).

B. We can say Joseph and Oliver told the truth but everyone else who spoke or wrote about the stone-in-a-hat scenario was a liar; i.e., Joseph never used the stone-in-a-hat technique. This requires one to believe a grand conspiracy over decades.

C. We can say that everyone told the truth according to what they observed, but people made inferences that they reported as facts. Joseph and Oliver translated the engravings on the plates using the Nephite interpreters, which they called Urim and Thummim. People also saw Joseph put a stone in a hat and dictate words to a scribe. But what these witnesses saw was a demonstration, not the actual translation.

I favor option C, and I provide all the detail in my upcoming book (to be released in August). The key is, Joseph was commanded never to show the Nephite interpreters or the plates to anyone. That commandment was a nullity if Joseph didn't even use the interpreters or the plates. Plus, the stone-in-a-hat scenario negates all the work Mormon and Moroni did when they abridged and protected the plates.

Why a demonstration? People were constantly asking about the translation process, but Joseph was expressly forbidden to let anyone see the interpreters or the plates. The solution: demonstrate how the translation works by putting a stone anybody can see in a hat anybody can see and then dictating words to a scribe while letting people infer they were watching the actual translation.

3. The language of the text. There are three basic explanations for the text of the Book of Mormon.

A. Composition. Critics claim Joseph and/or co-conspirators wrote the entire book, drawing from their experiences and sources available to them. The language is that of Joseph and/or his co-conspirators. Joseph read the words of such a manuscript to Oliver Cowdery when they were alone, and used the stone-in-a-hat demonstration to mislead observers.

B. Transcription. Because the stone-in-the-hat scenario has been embraced in today's Church, the concept of translation has evolved to the point where most LDS intellectuals now think Joseph merely transmitted (transcribed) words that appeared on the stone. They claim the language is not Joseph Smith's because he was unschooled and didn't know big words, the grammar of Early Modern English, etc. IOW, our LDS scholars now teach that Joseph didn't really translate the text. He simply read out loud the words that appeared on the stone in the hat.

C. Translation. After years of instruction from Moroni (and probably Nephi, one of the Three Nephites), Joseph used the Nephite interpreters to study the characters, translate them, write them down, and then give some of them to Martin Harris to take to New York. When Martin returned, Joseph dictated his translation to Martin, who then lost the 116 pages. Nearly a year later, Joseph dictated the translation of the text we have today to Oliver Cowdery (except for a few pages). The text we have today reflects Joseph's own vocabulary and speech patterns.

For reasons I explain in detail in my August book, Option B is the least plausible. Option C is better supported by the evidence than Option A. Plus, of course, it coincides with Option C from the method of translation.
_____

What does the translation process have to do with M2C?

I'm glad you asked.

The basic premise of M2C is that Joseph didn't know about Mesoamerican culture, that he was illiterate and barely educated, and that he speculated about the New York Cumorah, the plains of the Nephites, etc.

The idea that Joseph was smart and educated enough to produce the text of the Book of Mormon contradicts the M2C narrative. The more ignorant and speculative Joseph was, the better, as far as the intellectuals are concerned. They assert more knowledge than the prophets on lots of topics, but especially on the topic of the New York Cumorah.

This all comes back to the truth claims.

Imagine you are a youth in the Church attending Seminary or Institute or BYU. In which of the following explanations would you be more likely exercise faith?

Current CES/BYU teachings. Joseph Smith was an uneducated farm boy who found a seer stone in a well and produced the entire Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on the stone when he put it into a hat and covered his face with the hat. Yes, he found gold plates, but he didn't use them. Yes, Mormon and Moroni were real people, and they worked hard at considerable personal risk to abridge the Nephite records, but all that effort was only done so Joseph could have metal plates to show to 11 men who served as witnesses. And yes, Martin Harris said only the 3 witnesses ever saw the plates, but he was wrong. Yes, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said the Nephite depository was in the Hill Cumorah in New York, but they were wrong, too. So were all the prophets who repeated these teachings.

Alternative teachings. Although he attended little formal school, Joseph Smith was prepared from a young age to translate the Book of Mormon. Moroni directed him the the stone box that contained the plates and the Urim and Thummim prepared by the Lord for the translation of the plates. Joseph took these plates to Harmony and translated the engravings on them. After he and Oliver translated the last leaf of the plates (the Title Page), Joseph gave the plates to a divine messenger who took them to the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York. The messenger brought the plates of Nephi to Fayette, where Joseph and Oliver translated them. Martin Harris was correct that only the Three Witnesses and Joseph himself ever saw the original Harmony plates. David and Oliver were correct that the depository of Nephite records was in the Hill Cumorah in New York. All the prophets who repeated these teachings were likewise correct.
_____

The choice between these explanations could not be any plainer.

Does the Book of Mormon matter?

Yesterday Jana Reiss published an important article about how the Church addresses people in their 20s and 30s.

https://janariess.religionnews.com/2019/06/18/20-changes-the-new-mormon-president-has-made-to-appeal-to-millennials-and-generation-z/

She concludes: "I don’t think they will move the needle back to the way things used to be, for three reasons." Her reasons are (i) social issues, (ii) disaffiliation in society overall, and (iii) young people resist centralized authority.

I found this interesting because two words never came up in her article: truth, and Book of Mormon.

People still respond to truth.

Gospel living has always entailed some contrast with society as a whole.

It seems to me that skepticism about truth claims is a more basic problem than the reasons Reiss identified, and the 20 changes she listed have little to no bearing on the truth claims.

In fact, the Saints book (#16 on her list) created a false historical present purely to accommodate M2C.

We've seen how half of Millennials and even some BYU professors no longer believe the Book of Mormon is an authentic history.

That's an easily predictable outcome when BYU and CES teach the Book of Mormon with fantasy maps, especially when those maps are a pretext for teaching the M2C hoax.
_____

Here's another change Reiss should have mentioned: The Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography.

Now, "the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas."

That is a big change from the past and seems to be another accommodation to younger people who have been taught M2C their entire lives, but it's not exactly a reaffirmation of what the prophets have taught. It is difficult to see how this watering down of the teachings of the prophets will build faith.

Thanks to employees at BYU, CES and COB who believe in and promote M2C, very few Millennials or GenXers are familiar with the following teachings that have long been part of the Church's truth claims:

"The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

"This modernistic theory (M2C) of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years." 

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

"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 you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah."

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation."
_____

The point of the Restoration was bringing truth to the world and establishing Zion. The Book of Mormon was a critical element. The keystone, actually.

And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
(Moses 7:62)

Moving away from truth claims about the Book of Mormon seems to be the opposite of sweeping the earth with truth. Replacing those truth claims with M2C and fantasy maps is even worse.

And what about establishing Zion? Everyone seeks a just, fair, and loving society, with no poor among us and everyone seeking to serve and honor others.

The world has shown itself unable to establish Zion, despite an abundance of resources, teachings, and aspirations. That's because establishing Zion requires a change of heart. It's a process, not a goal, and the gospel can make it a reality.

But hardly anyone even knows about this because no one talks about it any more.

That's a topic for another time and place.

Let's get back to the Book of Mormon.
_____

Yesterday we saw how the underlying premise of M2C is fake. That's why I call it a hoax.

The M2C hoax reminds me of this: Whatever you think and believe will very much shape your reality." - @naval

M2C advocates have long maintained that the Mesoamerican setting is evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon because Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica.

The premise is fake because long before Joseph translated the plates, the ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica were well known. (Plus, the Book of Mormon doesn't describe Mesoamerica anyway, but that's a separate topic.)

The originator of M2C, an RLDS scholar named H.A. Stebbins, recognized that the premise of M2C would be invalid if, in fact, Joseph knew about ancient Mesoamerican civilizations before he translated the plates. In 1897, Stebbins wrote an article attempting to rebut the evidence that these civilizations were well known. Basically, he claimed the Europeans didn't know about the Mesoamerican ruins until after 1830, which may or may not be true but it's irrelevant because, as we saw yesterday, Humboldt's book was on sale in Palmyra in 1819. This is getting too far into the weeds, but if you're interested, email me and I'll email you the reference.

Once LDS intellectuals adopted the Stebbins M2C theory, they ran with it. Let's look at some of the LDS intellectual background for M2C.

_____

Extract from John Lloyd Stephens,
one of the displays at the "Worlds of Joseph Smith"
symposium at the Library of Congress

The M2C hoax was on full display at the disastrous Library of Congress event in 2005. That event, titled "The Worlds of Joseph Smith," portrayed the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican document. Speakers described Joseph Smith as ignorant, speculative and dependent on intellectuals. I discussed that conference here.

Here is an excerpt from a presentation at that conference:

Consequently,  what  Joseph  Smith  knew  and  understood about the book ought to be research questions rather than presumptions. Thanks  in  large  part  to  his  critics,  it  is  becoming  clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.

What is clear is that Joseph did not understand the M2C interpretation of the text. Having been tutored by Moroni, and having visited the depository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah in New York, the plains of the Nephites in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the site of Zelph's burial, etc., Joseph understood the content of the book quite well. 

He explained what Moroni taught him: "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity,  about the culture, mode of transportation, and other features."   

For  example,  early  Mormons  believed  Book  of  Mormon  lands stretched  throughout  all  of North  and  South  America,  a  presumption clearly at odds with the book itself (fig. 1a).⁸

Some early Mormons believed that, but only a handful wrote about that theory. Projecting the ideas of a few onto an entire population is a logical fallacy, of course. Here, it's even worse than usual because Joseph Smith explicitly rejected the hemispheric model. 

When he wrote the Wentworth letter, he based it on Orson Pratt's pamphlet, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions. In that pamphlet, Pratt had spent several pages outlining the hemispheric model. Joseph crossed out that section and replaced it with this: "the remnant [of the Nephites and Lamanites] are the Indians that now inhabit this country." Recall that he was writing from Nauvoo Illinois to an editors in Chicago Illinois. When he wrote "this country" he was not writing about Mesoamerica.

BTW, if you google "Wentworth letter," don't go to the first link. That one goes to the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. The curriculum committee (which is dominated by M2C believers) edited out Joseph's teaching about the Indians. Fortunately, the full Wentworth letter slipped past the censors into the Ensign in 2002, and you can still find it here.)]

The book speaks specifically only of a limited land about the size of Pennsylvania. 

Anyone can read the text and see that its descriptions of geography are anything but specific. The M2C interpretation confines it to a small area because that's the only way the M2C intellectuals can make it fit. (Ironically, Pennsylvania is a lot closer than southern Mexico.)

In 1842, after reading about ancient cities in Central America, Joseph speculated that Book of Mormon lands were located there (fig. 1b). 

Joseph as speculator, the framing every intellectuals loves because it elevates the scholars above the prophets. This sentence is a double hoax because ancient cities in Central America were known from at least 1804, when von Humboldt visited President Thomas Jefferson and told him about the ruins there, and because Joseph had nothing to do with the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles.

I derive two lessons from his speculation: First, Joseph did not know exactly where Book of Mormon lands were; second, he considered their  location  an  important  question  addressable  through scholarship.

Here is the self-serving repudiation of the prophets accompanied by the inevitable demand for full employment of scholars. 

BTW, almost every time you attend an academic conference such as this, at least one speaker will emphasize how important it is to continue more research. Scholars are understandably dependent on the financial support (and gullibility) of ordinary people, but in many cases, they are spending your money on rabbit holes that lead nowhere.

I'm all in favor of more information, but the M2C hoax has consumed millions of dollars and untold hours of wasted effort, all because the scholars decided the prophets were mere speculators, misleading the Church with their incorrect opinions. 
_____

You can go through the work of the M2C citation cartel and find nothing but M2C all the time. The cartel includes FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, BYU Studies, Meridian Magazine, and everyone who supports and reproduces their M2C materials.

The cartel resorts to censorship, obfuscation, and similar tactics to maintain M2C. But ultimately, they can't suppress the teachings of the prophets forever.

Or, maybe they can.

Why M2C undermines faith

I've been reluctant to post this material but I think it's time. As we've seen recently, faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is declining in the Church, not only among the younger generations but among BYU faculty. That trend will undoubtedly accelerate. And IMO, the reason is M2C.

This is not a question about what past Church leaders have said about Cumorah. It's not a question of interpreting the text and other semantic considerations.

The issue is the core belief of M2C that makes it attractive to so many Church members.
_____

People often ask why M2C advocates get angry when their theory is questioned.  A good answer appeared on twitter recently:

"Do you know why your feelings are hurt by criticism of your beliefs? Because you believe for emotional reasons instead of factual ones."

M2C believers are emotionally attached to their theory because they say it is the only plausible explanation of the Book of Mormon. For them, it is M2C or bust.

They actually think the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon depends on its Mesoamerican setting.

The M2C advocates think they are protecting and defending the Book of Mormon when they promote M2C. They think that alternative interpretations, including the New York Cumorah, are false. That's why they censor information about those alternatives, including the teachings of the prophets.

But the core belief of M2C has nothing to do with the teachings of the prophets.

Brother John Sorenson summarized the basic idea on p. 144 of his book, Mormon's Codex. Other M2C intellectuals make the same argument, but Sorenson's book is still the "high-water mark of scholarship" among M2C believers.

One of the most common explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon holds that Joseph Smith created the book on the basis of his local knowledge environment. In that case, one would have expected him to establish a more modest historical account than what he published. That is, lightly and almost entirely at second hand, he would have described Indians like the tribes known in his rural New York home where he grew up in the 1820s. Instead, in the book he published we read of full-fledged civilizations located in tropical America.

The idea that there was any ancient “civilization” in the Western Hemisphere was contrary to notions commonly held in Smith’s area in his day, and for that matter, it was contrary to the views of the entire Western world of the time. That there had existed ancient civilizations far to the south of the United States did not dawn on even sophisticated scholars or readers until the 1840s.

Do you see what's happening here?

M2C advocates think that Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica, so the Mesoamerican setting proves Joseph couldn't have written the Book of Mormon. 

By contrast, they claim a setting in North America, with the Hill Cumorah in New York, supports the arguments of critics who say Joseph wrote the book.

In my view, they have it exactly backwards.

As we're about to see, if Joseph Smith had composed the Book of Mormon, he would have set it in Central and South America.
_____

As I discuss in more depth in my upcoming book, there are three possible origins for the Book of Mormon.

1. Composition. This is the claim that Joseph (and/or co-conspirators) composed the Book of Mormon based on his experience and the information available to him.

2. Transcription. This is the claim that Joseph merely read words that appeared on a stone he placed into a hat (the "stone-in-a-hat" theory that is popular among today's LDS historians and M2C proponents).

3. Translation. This is Joseph's claim that he translated the engravings on ancient metal plates that related one thousand years of history of the ancient inhabitants "of this country."

We won't discuss transcription or translation in this post. Instead, we'll focus on the composition claim by examining what Brother Sorenson wrote. Original in blue, my comments in red.

One of the most common explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon holds that Joseph Smith created the book on the basis of his local knowledge environment. 

This is always the first assumption for any new book; i.e., that the author wrote it. What did Joseph's "local knowledge environment" consist of? Let's see what Brother Sorenson thinks. 

In that case, one would have expected him to establish a more modest historical account than what he published. That is, lightly and almost entirely at second hand, he would have described Indians like the tribes known in his rural New York home where he grew up in the 1820s. 

The "would have" argument is really no argument at all. It's pure mind reading (and usually it's projection). M2C scholars have embraced this mind reading uncritically because it confirms their bias, but we all know authors can invent all kinds of settings beyond the limits of their personal lives. 

Nevertheless, it's a good point in the sense that the Book of Mormon does not describe Indian tribes such as those known in western New York in the the 1820s. Of course, that says nothing about what the book does describe.  

Instead, in the book he published we read of full-fledged civilizations located in tropical America.

Here we have the flip side of mind reading. Instead of reading Joseph's mind, now Brother Sorenson is reading his own mind. The word "tropical" never appears in the text. Every indicia of "tropical America" is concocted by Brother Sorenson and his like-minded M2C believers. For example, the actual text omits the big three Js: jade, jaguars, and jungles. When Brother Sorenson sees the term "horses" in the text, he reads it as "tapirs." One well-known M2C scholar has explained that he "can't unsee" Mesoamerica when he reads the text. While that's undoubtedly true, it's because he wants to see Mesoamerica there, not because the words of the text describe Mesoamerica.   

The idea that there was any ancient “civilization” in the Western Hemisphere was contrary to notions commonly held in Smith’s area in his day, and for that matter, it was contrary to the views of the entire Western world of the time. 

This may have reflected the views of some people in Joseph's day, but not the views of Alexander von Humboldt, whose books were available in English in the early 1800s. Humboldt's 1811 book "Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain" was on sale in Palmyra in 1818 at the printing shop Joseph visited weekly to get the newspaper for his father.

Three times in that book, Humboldt referred to the isthmus of Panama as a "neck of land," which may explain why so many early Church writers inferred Panama was the "neck of land" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. 

Humboldt wrote about the "ancient pyramid of Cholula," "the ruins called las Casas grandes" that was "the site of an ancient cultivation of the human species," "the valley of Tenochititlan... the site of an ancient civilization of American people... more ancient monuments, the pyramids of Teotihuacan, dedicated to the sun and the moon," and more. He discussed the "aborigines" of Mexico, "these Indians, degraded by the despotism of the ancient Aztec sovereigns." He claimed that tribes of the "savages" "possess even languages of which the mechanism proves an ancient civilization." 

In one passage, he noted that past civilizations were greater than those built by the Spanish. "The enormous magnitude of the market-place of Tlatelolco, of which the boundaries are still discernible, proves the great population of the ancient city."

He also mentioned the "ancient grandeur of the empire of Cusco" and other ancient civilizations in South America. "These ruins appeared to him demonstrative of an immense population in Peru at a remote period."

Humboldt wrote about carved stones, statues covered with hieroglyphics, the entire destruction of a city, intermittent fevers, a city governed by a king independent of the larger nation, and more. 

Compare this passage from Humboldt to terms and concepts found in the Book of Mormon:

"In every village we find eight or ten old Indians who live at the expense of the rest, in the most complete idleness, whose authority is founded either on a pretended elevation of birth, or on a cunning policy transmitted from father to son. These chiefs... have the greatest interest in maintaining their fellow-citizens in the most profound ignorance; and they contribute the most to perpetuate prejudices, ignorance, and the ancient barbarity of manners." 

Recall, all of this is in an 1811 book on sale in Palmyra in 1819.

That there had existed ancient civilizations far to the south of the United States did not dawn on even sophisticated scholars or readers until the 1840s.

Humboldt's 1811 book stated the exact opposite of Sorenson's claim. Humboldt discussed the origins of the ancient people in Central America when, after observing that the "Toultecs" built cities, made roads, and constructed those great pyramids, he asked, "where is the source of that cultivation? where is the country from which the Toultecs and Mexicans issued?... There are no remains at this day of any ancient civilization of the human species to the north of the Rio Gila, or in the northern regions travelled through by Hearne, Fiedler, and Mackenzie."

In 1841 explorer John Lloyd Stephens published the first American edition of his sensational account of the discovery of ruined cities in Central America (Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan). 

The Stephens book was the first account of his discoveries, but it was far from the first account of the ancient civilizations in Mexico and Central America.

Before he knew about Stephens' book, Benjamin Winchester referred to Humboldt in his 1841 Gospel Reflector. He wrote "if any one should wish to learn farther concerning the antiquities of America, we recommend him to A. Davis' "Discovery of America by the North-men." J. Priests's "American Antiquities," Mr. Hill's Do.; and Baron Humboldt's "Travels in South America."

The Third Edition of Davis' book was published in 1839. Davis had sold out two previous editions in less than three months and had lectured widely. He sold 5,000 copies before publishing the Fifth Edition. 

Winchester quoted a passage from Davis' book about Palenque, but he did not quote the Third Edition (1839) or the Fifth Edition (1840). 

Davis wrote, "That America was peopled by those in advance of the savage state long before any authentic accounts are given of settlements, is manifest from nameless monuments of antiquity found in various parts. The ruins of a city in Central America are among the most striking of such. This city, called Palenque, lies two hundred and forty miles from Tabasco."

As Stephens’s biographer explained, “The acceptance of an ‘Indian civilization’ demanded, to an American living in 1839 [when Stephens’s book came out in London], an entire reorientation, for to him an Indian was one of those barbaric, half-naked te-pee dwellers against whom wars were constantly waged [on the American frontier]. . . . Nor did one ever think of calling the other indigenous inhabitants of the continent ‘civilized.’ In the universally accepted opinion [of that day], they were like their North American counterparts—savages.”1

The sensational aspect of Stephens' book was the illustrations of exotic ruins, not the idea that there had been ancient civilizations in Central and South America. Stephens was born in 1805, after Humboldt had already returned from his travels and met with President Thomas Jefferson. 

Long before Stephens traveled to Mesoamerica, the existence of ruined cities there was well known. In fact, Stephens read about the ancient civilization, including cities in Mesoamerica, in Humboldt's books.

Smith and his cohorts were just as surprised by what Stephens brought to light as was the contemporary public. Apparently, early believing readers of the Book of Mormon—including even Joseph Smith—had not paid enough attention to the book’s descriptions of the setting where Nephite history was played out to fully realize the implied level of civilization that now seems obvious when we read the text. The book relates that the people it tells about dwelled in “cities,” and even “great cities.” They practiced intensive agriculture to support the large populations implied. 

If "Joseph and his cohorts" were surprised by Stephens' books, they weren't paying attention to books being sold in Palmyra, let alone what Benjamin Winchester and others were writing.

In the 1814 English translation of his book titled Researches concerning the institutions and Monuments of the Ancient Inhabitants of America, Humboldt wrote about Quetzalcoatl, explaining the tradition and how the Spaniards were taken by Montezuma as being the descendants of Quetzalcoatl. "The reign of Quetzalcoatl was the golden age of the people of Anahuac. At that period, all animals, and even men, lived in peace; the earth brought forth, without culture, the most fruitful harvests; and the air was filled with a multitude of birds, which were admired for their song, and the beauty of their plumage. But this reign, like that of Saturn, and the happiness of the world, were not of long duration."

Humboldt described the Mayan numbering system. 

He included illustrations of ruins and "hieoglyphicals." 

He wrote about cement in Peru: "it is a true mortar, of which I detached considerable portions with a knife, by digging into the interstices which were left between the parallel courses of the stones. This fact deserves some attention; because the travellers who preceded us have all asserted, that the Peruvians were unacquainted with the use of mortar; but the supposition, that the Peruvians were as ignorant in this point as the ancient inhabitants of Egypt, is erroneous." 

_____

I could go on with this, but I suspect you see the point by now.

Its easy to see why some of the early LDS leaders and authors (but never Joseph Smith) claimed the Book of Mormon explained the civilizations described by Humboldt, Stephens and others. Contrary to what our M2C intellectuals have been telling us, people in Joseph's day knew all about ancient civilizations in Central and South America. To them, a hemispheric model made sense, especially because Humboldt himself had described Panama as a "neck of land."

Move forward to the late 1800s, when Joseph F. Smith was reaffirming the New York Cumorah and sought to purchase the hill. His opponents in the RLDS church declared that the hill in New York was not the real Cumorah, after all. They claimed that the "real Cumorah" was in Mexico.

Hence, M2C.

Soon enough, certain LDS scholars adopted their theory, partly because of the apologetic benefit. They began promoting the idea that Joseph could not have known about ancient civilizations in Central America before he translated the Book of Mormon; therefore, M2C actually proved the Book of Mormon was true.

And some of them still think that.

But, as we've seen in this post, it's a fundamentally flawed premise.

If Joseph (and/or his co-conspirators) composed the Book of Mormon as a record of a lost civilization, the most natural setting would be ancient America in Central and South America, precisely as described by Humboldt and others before the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

This is why I think M2C is exactly the wrong theory to promote the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

This is why I think M2C is going to continue to leave people confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon, just as Joseph Fielding Smith warned all those decades ago.
_____

Brother Sorenson did make a good point: Joseph could have composed a book based on his experiences with Indians in and around New York, but he didn't.

Joseph could just have easily composed a book set in ancient Central and/or South America. But he didn't.

So what is the Book of Mormon?
_____

I won't get into all the semantic arguments about geography, or the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah in New York, or Joseph Smith's statements in the Wentworth letter, on Zion's Camp, etc.

For now, just consider this.

Brother Sorenson made another good point: a powerful evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be its description of a civilization unknown and unknowable before Joseph translated the plates.

The ancient civilizations in Central and South America simply don't qualify because they were described in books sold right in Palmyra before Joseph even met Moroni.

What does qualify?

The Hopewell and Adena civilizations of North America.

These civilizations were not even named until around 1900. The extent and sophistication of these civilizations is still being discovered today.

They fit the time frames from the text and the locations Joseph identified. They align with the New York Cumorah. They match up with other important events that have taken place, and will take place, in North America.
_____

Long-time readers know that I accepted M2C for decades. Like the fine young scholars employed by the M2C citation cartel today, I was convinced by my CES and BYU teachers that the prophets were wrong and that the scholars were right.

That was my mistake, and I hope that more members of the Church, as well as non-members, can come to see M2C for the mistake it is. I'm not trying to persuade anyone; I simply encourage people to make informed decisions.

In recent years I have come to realize the prophets were right about Book of Mormon geography all along. They have always emphasized two main points:

1. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.

2. We don't know the location of the other events.

These are the only two positions I hold.

Point #2 is important because it's not a lack of evidence but an overabundance of evidence that we confront. It's impossible to choose among dozens or hundreds of sites in North America that could match up with the text.

That said, I don't reject a Mesoamerican setting per se (although I think it's relatively implausible). I don't categorically exclude any theory of geography that has Cumorah in New York.

As more and more people return to accepting what the prophets have taught all along, we will discover more and more evidence that supports their teachings.

It's an exciting time to be a member of the Church.

Undisclosed location

In April I did a series of posts on the M2C hoax and the Illusion of Scholarship - Mormon's Codex. This week we'll revisit M2C as I explain why I think M2C is a hoax based on illusory scholarship.

People are wondering where I'm hanging out lately. I have about 75 days before leaving the country again for an extended absence, so I'm in an undisclosed location trying to get a lot of work done. Here's what I look at each day.

The Future Isn’t What It Used to Be

I'm an optimist, but I try to temper optimism with realism. As readers here know, I think it is important to revisit fundamentals regarding the Book of Mormon and Church history. In the 1980s, there was a tipping point toward intellectualism that persists to this day that is contributing to a loss of faith.

Andy Kessler wrote a great piece for the Wall St. Journal titled "The Future Isn’t What It Used to Be."
Here's the link, but there's a paywall:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-future-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-11560714338

Kessler starts his article with this anecdote:

Founded in 1867, the Keuffel & Esser Co. commissioned a study of the future for its 100th anniversary [in 1967]. If you’re of a certain vintage, you might have used a K&E slide rule. Their “visionary” study was a huge dud, missing completely the electronic-calculator boom that came a few years later. They shut down their slide-rule engravers in 1976. 

As Mark Twain said, “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Or was it Niels Bohr? Maybe Yogi Berra?

I bring it up because I was thinking of Rodney Stark's forecast that by 2020, there would be 23 million members of the Church, with 52 million in 2040 and 267 million in 2080. Back in the 1980s, those were the numbers we all anticipated.

[Those estimates were actually the high side of Stark's projections, but those are the numbers everyone talked about back then. His article is here: https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/latter-day-saint-social-life-social-research-lds-church-and-its-members/1-rise-new-world.]

To modify Kessler's quotation, "It's difficult to make accurate predictions, especially about the future."

Instead of 23 million members, of course, Church membership is around 17 million, of whom about 5 million are active. See the pie chart. Click on it for the link.

Occasionally I've written about my visits to various Church units around the world. Recently I heard about another unit in which the MLS missionaries are visiting the names on the ward list, only to find out most are not there and no one knows where they are.

That's a very common experience throughout the Church, as we all know.

An updated forecast expects about a 20-million member peak in 2045 or so, based on a 2015 study that used logistic instead of exponential growth.

The blue area shows total membership, while the red line shows the growth rate.

So far, as of 2019, that model looks spot on.

A lot of Church members are rationalizing that this is about right. They read 1 Nephi 14:12 and reason that the Church's "numbers were few" because of wickedness and abominations.

Maybe they're right.

Maybe all is well in Zion.

But maybe not.

From my perspective, it is increasingly difficult for the youth in the Church, for investigators (friends), and for less active members to develop faith because of certain modern narratives in Church history and how they relate to the Book of Mormon.

Start with the BYU/CES fantasy map inspired by M2C.

The map explicitly teaches two things:

1. The descriptions in the text do not fit any real-world setting.

2. The prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

How many youth who grow up with this image of the Book of Mormon in their minds are going to believe it is an actual history of real people?

Already, we've seen that BYU professors, including some in the BYU Religion Department, don't believe the Book of Mormon is a real history. 50% of Millennials in the Church don't believe it is a real history.

I expect the number of members who don't believe the Book of Mormon is a real history to continue to rise. How could it not?

Especially when we have the Church History Department deliberately censoring the New York Cumorah from the record.

We have leading intellectuals in the Church pushing M2C in the hope that, by convincing people the prophets are wrong about Cumorah, they will persuade everyone that the Book of Mormon is a real history, set in Mesoamerica. They don't see the irony that by undermining faith in the prophets, M2C undermines faith in the Book of Mormon, too.

These same intellectuals are raising millions of dollars from Church members and then hiring fine young scholars to push these narratives out through social media.

The future is definitely not what it used to be.

Who knows? Maybe once the intellectuals manage to persuade everyone that the Book of Mormon is "pious fiction" the Church will grow faster than ever.

I find that unlikely, but the future is by its nature unpredictable.

Except there was that one prophet who warned that M2C would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon...

There is an alternative path.

Members of the Church can learn what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah and how those teachings are supported by plenty of evidence. They can learn how events in Church history make sense and corroborate the scriptures.

We'll discuss this a little more this week.

Guide to avoid contention

I hear from a lot of people involved with missionary and activation work. In an effort to help avoid contention, this post is a guide to discussing the question of Cumorah with your friends.

Those of us who accept the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah are happy and confident. We see the consistency between what the prophets have taught, the descriptions in the text of the Book of Mormon, and relevant anthropology, archaeology, geology, etc. The more we learn, the more we see that the prophets were right all along.

We understand the text better because it all makes sense in this setting. We don't have to rely on experts who tell us Joseph didn't translate it correctly, or didn't translate it at all, that he was an ignorant speculator, etc. We're puzzled by BYU professors who don't believe the Book of Mormon is a real history and by BYU professors who teach the Book of Mormon by using a fantasy map.

We see how the two-sets-of-plates explains what were once discrepancies in accounts in Church history. We see how Joseph was consistent throughout his lifetime and did not change his mind because of a popular 1841 travel book.

Everything is awesome, and it gets better all the time.

We want to share all of this, but we get a lot of pushback from our M2C friends.

The key point: contention is pointless. It never changes anyone's mind.  All you can do is provide information. Let your friends make up their own minds and accept their decisions. Don't expect anyone else to believe something just because you do. If you try to change someone else's opinion, you will become frustrated or even angry. Just look at how the M2C employees are acting on the Internet.
_____

One approach, of course, is to avoid the question. Never tell anyone what you've learned or what you think. If you're involved with missionary or reactivation work, just respond to the inevitable question about historicity by saying "We don't know where any of the events took place, where the people lived, etc."

We all know how well that goes over.

The other approach is to say you believe the Hill Cumorah is in New York, as the prophets have taught, but we don't know for sure the location of other events (as the prophets have also taught) because there are so many plausible locations throughout the Americas. You have ideas that seem to work, but you're not claiming any prophetic or Church support.

That's a solid answer. It's the same answer people give about the Bible; i.e., we know where Jerusalem is, and some of the other locations, but we don't know where all the events took place.
_____

If you take the second approach, you will probably get pushback from M2C intellectuals, their employees, and their followers.

Here is a question to ask when we discuss the Hill Cumorah with our M2C friends:

How many times do the prophets have to reaffirm the New York Cumorah before you will accept what they teach?

For most M2C intellectuals and their employees, the answer in their mind is this: "I'll never accept that. The prophets don't know. Our experts have interpreted the Book of Mormon for us and they say Cumorah can only be in Mesoamerica."

But they won't say that. Instead, they'll get angry and refuse to talk about it.

We reply, "Fine. We'll have to agree to disagree." No contention. Zero. Just move on.

For others, the answer is "Just one more time. Then I'll accept it."

We reply, "Seriously?"

For many M2C believers who have followed the M2C citation cartel carefully, the answer is, "I didn't know the prophets ever taught or reaffirmed that Cumorah is in New York."

We say, "Here's what they have taught."

They say, "Wow, I had no idea. I believe what the prophets have taught. They don't have to reiterate it again. I'll accept what they have taught."

As always, we emphasize that the New York Cumorah does not determine the locations of the rest of the events in the Book of Mormon. You can accept the New York Cumorah and still believe the other events took place in Mesoamerica, Panama, Chile, Baja--wherever you want.
_____

IMO, so long as our leading intellectuals in the Church claim (and teach) that we need the modern prophets to reaffirm the New York Cumorah "one more time" before they'll accept it, there is no reason for the prophets to teach it yet again.

These intellectuals (and their followers) have rejected the teachings of all the prior prophets and apostles on this topic. We have no reason to believe they would accept the New York Cumorah even if President Nelson taught it tomorrow.

As they Savior said in John 5,

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

_____

If you discuss Book of Mormon geography, especially the New York Cumorah, with an M2C brother or sister, you will observe a series of reactions.

Usually, as we saw above, they get angry and refuse to discuss the issue. This follows the example of the M2C intellectuals they follow.

If they are not as deeply emotional as Dan Peterson and his peers, they might engage in a discussion of the merits.

If they don't know much, the conversation will go something like this:

You: "I think Cumorah is in New York."

Them: "The experts (and their followers and employees) all say you're wrong."

You: "Do you sustain those experts as prophets, seers and revelators?"

Them: "Well, no, but their employees say they are hired by the prophets to guide the Church."

You: "And you believe that?"

Them: Silence.

You: "The intellectuals in the M2C citation cartel censor information that contradicts their theories. Why don't we discuss the facts so you can make an informed decision for yourself?"

Them: "Sounds good."

If all your friends know about Cumorah is what they've learned from BYU, CES, FairMormon, the Interpreter, BYU Studies, Book of Mormon Central, etc., they're ignorant. They have no idea what the prophets have taught. Once they learn the truth, they may change their minds immediately. This is rare because few people have open minds.

If they are knowledgeable about the facts, and still believe in M2C, your M2C friends will respond with a series of "yes, but" statements, again following the lead of the M2C intellectuals.

The conversation will go like this:

You: Joseph knew the hill was named Cumorah even before he got the plates, as he related to his mother.

M2C: Yes, but maybe his mother misheard or misremembered.

You: She included this in her revision, which indicates it was specific and intentional.

M2C: Yes, but maybe she was relating the false tradition about Cumorah.

You: During their mission to the Lamanites in 1830, Parley and Oliver taught people that Moroni said the hill was named Cumorah anciently.

M2C: Yes, but maybe they were the ones who started the false tradition.

You: Shortly after he joined the Church, Heber C. Kimball visited the Hill Cumorah in New York and observed the embankment still around the hill.

M2C: Yes, but maybe he was mistaken.

You: Part of that embankment still exists.

M2C: Yes, but maybe it's a coincidence, or some farmer created it.

You: In Letter VII, Oliver said it was a fact that the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites.

M2C: Yes, but maybe he was only stating his opinion.

You: But he said it was a fact.

M2C: Yes, but maybe he was speculating.

You: He was the ordained Assistant President of the Church, designated as spokesman.

M2C: Yes, but maybe he was speculating.

You: He and Joseph had been inside the Nephite depository of records inside the Hill Cumorah.

M2C: Yes, but maybe that was a vision of a hill in Mexico.

You: They went multiple times.

M2C: Yes, but maybe it was still a vision.

You: Joseph had his scribes copy Letter VII into his personal history as part of his life story.

M2C: Yes, but maybe he accepted the false tradition because he speculated, too.

You: Subsequent prophets and apostles have reaffirmed Letter VII. [Going through the list of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, George Albert Smith, President Ivins, President Romney, etc.]

M2C: Yes, but maybe they were speculating, too. In fact, they were definitely speculating, because our experts have interpreted the Book of Mormon for us and they say Cumorah is in Mesoamerica.

[This is where you get back to the beginning.]

You: How many times do the prophets have to reaffirm the New York Cumorah before you will accept what they teach?

M2C: Just one more time. Then I'll believe.
_____

Gospel Topics Essay reposted

As we saw recently, "Many BYU professors, even on the religion faculty, do not believe the Book of Mormon is historical."

It's pretty easy to see why.

Many years ago, President Joseph Fielding Smith denounced M2C by stating that "Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon."

That prophetic warning has never been more important than it is now.
_____

First, I emphasize that there is no need to contend about any of this. 

Contention is pointless anyway. Facts don't matter because most people merely confirm their biases regardless of the evidence. I'm only addressing those who are still developing their biases and those few who have an open mind about this topic. I fully realize that M2C has been imprinted on the minds of most members of the Church; I, too, believed it for decades.

I especially don't expect M2C intellectuals, their followers or their employees, to do anything but confirm their biases.

My effort in this blog is about education, not persuasion or contention. I encourage people to make informed decisions, which requires facts, but I don't care what anyone else believes. Each individual is responsible for his/her own views. I write this blog to explain why I think what I think, but anyone is free to agree or disagree, no problem. If I was contending, I'd approach this much differently.

As it says above the title of every post, "This is a friendly discussion among brothers and sisters who all love the Book of Mormon and believe it is actual history. We seek unity on how to interpret the text and Church history. This blog focuses on the North American setting as the simplest and best explanation of Book of Mormon geography, with Cumorah in New York, but we recognize other settings are meaningful for other people."

I suppose there are some people who read this, like the BYU professors mentioned above, who don't believe the Book of Mormon is actual history. But they're not really part of the discussion.

Here's what I do care about: I care when M2C intellectuals pushing their own theories:

(i) censor the teachings of the prophets,

(ii) actively teach the youth of the Church theories that contradict the teachings of the prophets,

(iii) when students discover the teachings of the prophets on their own, teach these students that the prophets are wrong; and

(iv) claim the support of the Church and the prophets by virtue of their employment at BYU/CES/COB and by virtue of their close friendship and relationships with Church leaders.

_____

Version 2 of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography has a new home:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng

It looks identical to the version 2 that appeared in February, which I previously discussed. Go to this link if you want to see the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

I'm told the essay was written by a committee, which is why it is anonymous.

The essay says, "the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas."

This is a distinct change from the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency, personally approved by President Ezra Taft Benson and his counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson, which reads:

“The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”

The anonymous essay stands for itself, of course. But it has been changed once, and it can be changed again.
_____

Readers here know that Version 1 included a mangled 1929 quotation from President Ivins that tried to accommodate M2C. When I pointed out that in 1928 President Ivins gave a General Conference address reaffirming the New York Cumorah, the committee replaced Version 1 by deleting President Ivins completely. You can see President Ivins' 1928 address here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/president-ivins-on-new-york-cumorah.html

Seems to me that the essay would have been more informative and would have clarified the matter by including and explaining both quotations by President Ivins instead of deleting them altogether.

The problem hasn't gone away. The Gospel Topics Essay on DNA studies retains the 1929 quotation from President Ivins, but of course does not include the 1928 address.

This is all interesting because it leads to the question, what is a "Gospel Topics Essay." Is it scripture? Does it supersede the scriptures and all prior teachings of the prophets?

Some say yes (especially the M2C intellectuals, their followers and employees).

I'm just asking, and I'm not alone in wondering about this.

For example, the Gospel Topics Essay on DNA studies teaches Darwinian evolution. Here's a quotation from one of the sources cited in footnote 16:

The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans comes from fossils located in Ethiopia that can be dated to about 150,000–190,000 years (150–190 kyr) ago7,8. Beyond Africa, fossil evidence of anatomically modern humans has been reported as early as about 100 kyr ago in the Middle East9 and about 80 kyr ago in southern China10. However, other hominins, such as Neanderthals, which disappeared from the fossil record about 40 kyr ago11 (Fig. 2), have been found throughout Eurasia as far back as 400 kyr.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772775/

Anyone can see the conflict between that quotation and the teachings of the scriptures and the prophets.

E.g., D&C 77:6.


Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

Are we to understand that the Gospel Topics Essay supersedes D&C 77:6?

How does the DNA essay relate to the essay titled Fall of Adam and Eve?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

I'm fine with the ambiguity. I'm fine with leaving it up to each member of the Church to make his/her own informed decisions based on study and faith, as they feel guided by the Spirit. Each person can study the science and the scriptures and reconcile them however they want.

In fact, the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography seems to be saying that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, so long as they don't claim prophetic or Church support.

That's a sound approach, consistent with Articles of Faith 9 and 11.

There's an enormous difference between claiming prophetic or Church support, and seeking to support the prophets and the Church.

Is "having an opinion" the same as "having an informed opinion?"

Obviously not.

Article of Faith 9 assures us "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

No one can believe something God has revealed if they don't know what God has revealed. No one can believe the teachings of the prophets if they don't know what the prophets have taught.

How can members of the Church make informed decisions when the essay itself doesn't inform anyone of what the prophets have taught about the topic?

For example, the essay gives no citations to the teachings of the prophets, such as those included here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/byu-packet-on-cumorah.html

The essay does not address Letter VII, which declares it is a fact that the final battles took place in the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York. Letter VII also declares that the depository of Nephite records was inside the same hill.

Letter VII was written by President Oliver Cowdery and specifically endorsed by all the members of the First Presidency at the time: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams. Oliver and Joseph personally visited the depository on multiple occasions. Every member of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency who has ever addressed the issue has reaffirmed Letter VII's teaching about the New York Cumorah. None has questioned, let alone repudiated, the New York Cumorah.

But the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay does.

Well, the M2C intellectuals claim it does.

As I read it, the Gospel Topics essay specifically addresses only the opinions expressed over the years about Book of Mormon locations other than Cumorah. That's what President Ivins in 1929 was addressing. The essay does not, on its face, revoke the clear, specific teachings about the fact that Cumorah is in New York.

Besides the teachings of the prophets, there are lots of reasons to accept the New York Cumorah based on the text and relevant anthropology, archaeology, etc. Nevertheless, some people think the teachings of the prophets would be a good place to start.
_____

The essay has already been changed once. It can be changed again. 

I encourage the committee to revise the essay a third time.

This time, help members of the Church make informed decisions by including references to the teachings of the prophets.

If the Church's position is now that prior prophets were wrong, make that clear. If the Church's position is that the consistent teachings of the prior prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah were merely their opinions, make that clear.

It's beyond time to clarify the situation President Joseph Fielding Smith identified all those years ago.

But if that's not possible, at least members of the Church should be fully informed about what the prophets have taught so they can make informed decisions.
_____