Has the Location of the Hill Cumorah Been Revealed?

Some have recently claimed that the location of the Hill Cumorah has been identified by revelation and that the New York Hill, called by that name today is the same hill at which the Nephites and Jaredites of the Book of Mormon were destroyed. Other Latter-day Saints who have examined the historical evidence have concluded that name of the New York Hill is likely based upon old tradition rather than a revelation of the geographical location of Mormon's Cumorah. Do those who hold the latter view reject the Prophets?

In recent decades Church leaders and historians have expressed caution concerning the location of the ancient hill. See for example, a recent statement from the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by two Church historians "Saints and Book of Mormon Geography."

Recently, the Church has also issued another statement affirming that the Church does not have an official position on the location of events in the Book of Mormon beyond affirming that they took place somewhere in the Americas. The Church welcomes humble and careful study of the subject, but cautions the Saints not to represent their personal interpretations as those of the Church.

On this see also my earlier post  "A New York Cumorah: Not a Hill We Have to Die On"

Here is the latest from the Pan on this question

"Has the Location of the Hill Cumorah Really Been Revealed?"

Neville-Neville Land

A number of years ago I discussed some of the concerns I had over the rise of what has come to be known as the Heartland Movement.

"Losing the Remnant: The New Exclusivist `Movement' and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 22/2 (2010): 87-124.

"Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography," FARMS Review 22/2 (2010): 15-85.


In 2015 I also addressed some of the writings and claims of Jonathan Neville who is currently one of the leaders of this movement.

"The Treason of the Geographers: Mythical `Mesoamerican' Conspiracy and the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 16 (2015): 161-205.


"John Bernhisel's Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 16 (2015):207-253.


"Zarahemla Revisited: Neville's Newest Novel," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 17 (2015):17-61.


"Setting the Record Straight"


It appears that I have not been the only target such attacks. These now include CES, including the Seminary and Institute program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young University, the Church History Department, editors of the Joseph Smith Papers, Interpreter Foundation, FAIRMormon, Book of Mormon Central, and some of the art which may be hanging on our chapel walls.

I was recently surprised to note the appearance of Neville-Neville Land: Refuting the Errors of Jonathan Neville and Heartland Hoax. It seems that Peter Pan and Captain Hook have taken up the gauntlet and have been addressing the poor logic, misrepresentation, and escapades of the Neville-One.

What is the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

In the past several months Book of Mormon Central has published a number of research summaries relating chiasmus and the Book of Mormon. The following article, "Does Chiasmus Prove Anything about the Book of Mormon?" provides a concluding capstone to this recent series.

For the sake of those who may have missed some of these I list them here with links to them at Book of Mormon Central.

"How Was Chiasmus Discovered in the Book of Mormon?"

"How Much Could Joseph Smith Have Known about Chiasmus in 1829?'

"What Counts as Chiasmus?"

"How Did Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Writers Use Chiasmus?"

"Can Chiasmus Survive Translation?"

"Was Chiasmus Known to Ancient American Writers?"

"What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 1"

"What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 2"

"What Can We Learn from 10 of the Best Chiasms in the Book of Mormon? Part 3"

There have also been several news stories about the recent Chiasmus Jubilee on August 16. These reports only deal with the last and closing event of what was actually a two day international conference hosted by Book of Mormon Central at Brigham Young University and included both Latter-day Saint and non Latter-day Saint Scholars. We expect that the proceedings will be published sometime in the future.

Here is a transcript of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's remarks at the Chiasmus Jubilee

Here is a brief report including some pictures of Elder Holland

and

"Chiasmus, a Columnist, and Conviction of the Book of Mormon"

A New York Cumorah? Not a Hill We Have to Die On

    In 1990, anti-Mormons began to circulate copies of a letter purportedly written by F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency to a Bishop Darrell L. Brooks in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, dated October 16, 1990. In his letter, Watson noted that a member of Brooks’ ward had “inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.”He then wrote, “The Church has long maintained, as attested to by the 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” (F. Michael Watson to Darrell L. Brooks, 16 October, 1990).

    In 1993, while I was a student at BYU, I was also a part-time employee at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Part of my responsibilities then included responding to frequently asked questions about the Book of Mormon which we often received. I was frequently at the office and remember when Brent Hall showed me a FAX from Michael Watson, then Secretary to the First Presidency. Brent allowed me to make a copy of it, which we found very helpful at the time in responding to questions about the 1990 letter, which anti-Mormons at Utah Mission in Marlow Oklahoma and Watchman Fellowship in Texas were then giving wide circulation. This was shared with me and others at the time, including some who had written to FARMS with questions. Additionally, Professor William Hamblin had also written directly to Michael Watson and received a copy of the same FAX from the Office of the First Presidency as well which he cited in an article published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in 1993.

    Some writers have claimed without basis that the FAX was either a fabrication or was sent by a Church employee in Salt Lake City without the knowledge or support of the First Presidency or Michael Watson. These claims are baseless. The following is a copy of a two page document which I retain in my personal files. The first page is a cover memo written and signed by Brent Hall who was the office manager at FARMS during this time. The second page is the FAX in question. The cover memo or first page reads:

I thought you would be interested in this FAX from Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency. We have been receiving a number of questions from the Oklahoma, Texas area where anti-Mormons are using a letter from Brother Watson to a Bishop where Brother Watson said that the Church supports only one location for Cumorah, and that is the New York location. I talked with him on the phone the other day and told him of the questions that were coming to us. He responded that the First Presidency would like to clear up that issue and he would FAX me with the clarification.

The second page, the FAX itself is dated April 23, 1993 and was sent by Carla Ogden (presumably secretary working in the office) to Brent Hall at FARMS. It reads:

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.

As indicated in this memo:

1) Brent Hall spoke directly with Michael Watson and discussed the questions that were being generated by his previous 1990 letter.

2) Watson informed Hall that the First Presidency wanted to clear up the misunderstanding (that the Church considered the location of the final battlefield in New York a matter of revelation and doctrinal importance) and that the forthcoming FAX was intended to address that misunderstanding.

3) The FAX itself, when the context is understood, constitutes a correction of the 1990 Watson letter as well as a clarification of the Church position on the subject. It is consistent with earlier statements by Church leaders that the question of the location of the final battlefield of the Jaredites and Nephites at Cumorah, as with other points of Book of Mormon geography, should not be considered a matter that has been settled by revelation, is not a standard of doctrinal orthodoxy, but remains an open question for careful students of the Book of Mormon.

[For details see my discussion “The Church and Book of Mormon Geography”]

Darkness and Destruction in 3 Nephi 8-10 (Howlers # 32)

"The author, evidently, mounts the fiery steed of his imagination and herds together every strange thing, every wonderful thing, every blood-curdling story, and every impossible thing he had ever heard of, or thought of, or dreamed of, and attempts, in this master effort, to combine them all in one huge miracle!"

M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (1887).

"The account of the convulsions of nature, which occurred in America at the time of Christ’s coming, would compel the geologist to re-examine his theories as to the formation of land and sea, and the astronomer to adjust his laws of the heavens to the wonderful three days of darkness."

F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator (1912).

"Geology and the Book of Mormon are in irreconcilable"

T. C. Smith, The Book of Mormon and Mormonism (1912).


Wrong again. Those contrary rascals over at Book of Mormon Central provides an informative summary of recent research and perspectives.

A Night Without Darkness (Howlers # 31)

"I will here remark, a singular night, as light as the day. We Yankees have been taught to believe, that the light was called day, and the darkness called night; but Mormons, to outdo all others, they have night in the day time."

Tyler Parsons, Mormon Fanaticism Exposed, 1841.

Book of Mormon Central has an interesting post today documenting historical precedents for the kind of event described in Third Nephi chapter one.

What were Jaredite Swords Made of?

Some ancient bronze swords have been recovered from the Old World. The greenish color on these swords shows corrosion from bronze cancroid or bronze disease. 

In several earlier posts here and here I discuss evidence for Pre-Columbian swords in ancient Mesoamerica. Swords were an important weapon in the arsenal of Book of Mormon peoples. It is likely that most swords in the Book of Mormon did not have metal blades, but the text does indicate that some of the people of Jared and Lehi possessed rare metal blades. The earliest reference is found in the account of the Jaredite prince Shule who led a successful rebellion to overthrow his brother’s regime.

“And it came to pass that Shule was angry with his brother; and Shule waxed strong, and became mighty as to the strength of man; and he was also mighty in judgment. Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for these whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Cohihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it to his father Kib” (Ether 7:8-9).

The deeds of Shule in the passage are portrayed as noteworthy. He is described as “mighty in judgment” (Ether 7:8). He is the one with the knowledge and skill to do this. “He did molten,” he “made swords out of steel,” “he . . . armed them.” Did he pass this remarkable skill on to others? The passage does not say. It is interesting, however, that the next generation is nearly wiped out by war (Ether 9:12) and that there is no subsequent mention of steel or steel swords in the Book of Ether. This could be an indication that “steel” technology among the Jaredites was rare or even subsequently lost? In periods of social anarchy, rare and valuable possessions would tend to be stolen and lost or perhaps destroyed (Ether 14:1).

Shule’s steel may indeed refer to carburized iron that he learned how to temper into effective weaponry, but in early modern English the word steel had a broader range of meaning than it has today, which included not only carburized iron, but also hardened copper alloys such as bronze. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that while steel was more often applied to carburized iron, it could also be applied to “an alloy of tin and copper,” that is, bronze. This is why early English translations of the Bible, Coverdale (1535), Cranmer (1540), Matthews (1549), Bishop’s (1568), and the King James Version (1611) rendered the Hebrew word for copper in Psalms 18:34 and 2 Samuel 22:35 as “steel” even though in today’s terminology it would be more appropriately rendered “bronze” (Frank Moore Cross Jr., and David Noel Freedman, “A Royal Song of thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalms 18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 72/1 March 1953: 31). “The translation `steel’ instead of `bronze’ which appears in the King James Authorized Version, originated with Kimhi, who interpreted nhwsh as `hard metal” (Steven Shnider, “Psalm XVIII: Theophany, Ephiphany, Empowerment,” Vetus Testamentum 56/3 2006: 394).

The other passage bearing on the question of Jaredite swords is the one describing King Limhi’s search party. Although, they did not find the land of Zarahemla, the search party found ruins of buildings and bones of the Jaredites along with the 24 gold plates of Ether. “And for a testimony that the thing that they have said are true . . . . They have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust” (Mosiah 8:10-11). The search party brought back the rusted sword blades and other artifacts “for a testimony that the things that they had said are true” (Mosiah 8:9). That could suggest that metal blades were thought to be rare or unusual.

The description of rusted sword blades could refer to rusted steel, although the passage does not identify the metal in question. At the present time no authentic archaeological specimens of carburized iron steel are known from Pre-Columbian America. Given, however, the broader range of meaning of the word steel in the language into which the Book of Mormon was translated, it is also possible that the blades described were bronze blades. At least two different kinds of bronze were known in Pre-Columbian Mexico, though known archaeological specimens date later than Book of Mormon times. It is currently thought to have been introduced from north-western South America (Dorothy Hosler and Guy Stresser-Pean, “The Huastec Region: A Second Locus for the Production of Bronze Alloys in Ancient Mesoamerica,” Science 257 (28 August, 1992): 1215-1220; Heather Lechtman, “Arsenic Bronze: Dirty Copper or Chosen Alloy? A View from the Americas,” Journal of Field Archaeology 23 1996: 477-514).  If the Jaredite blades found by Limhi’s search party were bronze, the description of blades cankered with rust would be an apt description of the effects of “bronze cancroid” or “bronze disease.” Bronze disease is “the process of interaction of chloride-containing species within the bronze patina with moisture and air, often accompanied by corrosion of the copper allow itself” (David Scott, “Bronze Disease: A Review of Some Chemical Problems and the Role of Relative Humidity,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 29/2 Autumn, 1990: 193).  In such cases, according to Jason Sanchez and Ken Harl, bronze objects develop a greenish color on their surface when exposed to “extremes of heat, humidity, acids, or environmental pollutions,” typical of “a region with relatively high humidity throughout the calendar year.” If left untreated, “it produces a remarkable disintegrating and destructive effect on the object it attacks . . . slowly reducing it to amorphous powder” (W. G. Wood-Martin, “The Copper Age in Ireland,” Ulster Journal of Archaeology 9/2 April 1903: 91).  Bronze disease” according to Tonya Yirka, is the “equivalent to rust in iron-based metals, occurs when oxygen and chloride combine in a moist environment to make hydrochloric acid. This acid forms copper and tin chlorides which in turn break down the bronze. Uncontrolled, this process will eventually destroy the bronze.” This process has only been more or less recognized and understood for the past century or so. (Wood-Martin, “The Copper Age in Ireland,” 89; Scott, “Bronze Disease: A Review of Some Chemical Problems and the Role of Relative Humidity,” 193).

Given that such weapons were likely quite rare anyway, we would not expect that we would necessarily find surviving examples in an ancient trash heap, nevertheless, the Book of Mormon description of how such blades could corrode and perish is understandable.