I suppose, given the censorship of the word Cumorah in the book Saints, it makes sense that the editors of Saints relegated Cumorah to these obscure footnotes that refer to an even more obscure Master's Thesis.
What was once a simple, plain teaching--that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York, a few miles south of Palmyra--has become a multi-faceted, complex issue. But the complexity has arisen solely because of the objections of a handful of M2C intellectuals.
M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) should never have been allowed to censor the history of the Church.
That's the tragedy of Saints.
I still think Saints should be revised and reissued to correct all the misleading (and false) revisionist Church history it contains. But since that probably won't happen, and since Packer's Master's Thesis is the only reference Church members have been given, we need to take a closer look at it.
_____
Overall, Packer's thesis is an excellent overview of the history of the Hill Cumorah.
However, I call your attention to something. Beginning on p. 43, Packer discusses the geography issue with a lengthy footnote "regarding different models of Book of Mormon geography that include the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah being in Central America."
Throughout his paper, he cites President Cowdery's letters for their factual content.
But notice how he introduces Letter VII on page 44. Before quoting the key passages, Packer writes:
"A common experience seems to be that when the members of the Church visited the Hill Cumorah, they would reflect upon the hill [sic] Cumorah as depicted in the Book of Mormon, and experience certain emotions that they directly associated with the geography of that Manchester hill."
Notice that? He says people would "experience certain emotions."
Only then does he quote President Cowdery's declaration:
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 this valley fell the remaining strngth 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.
Framing this as a product of "certain emotions" is a less than subtle way to reject what Oliver declared was a fact.
Or, as our M2C intellectuals frame it, President Cowdery was merely speculating, giving his own uninformed (and incorrect) opinion. And, of course, President Joseph Smith passively went along with it and made sure all members of the Church would learn and perpetuate this false tradition.
As we've discussed before, Oliver could state this as a fact because he had actually been in Mormon's depository in the hill.
Moreover, Packer does not ever mention that these letters, including Letter VII, were copied into Joseph's personal history, or that they were republished by Joseph's brothers in the Times and Seasons and The Prophet, as well as in the Millennial Star and Gospel Reflector.
Needless to say, none of those facts are mentioned in Saints, either.
_____
As long as we're looking at this closely, you'll notice the quotation from W.W. Phelps just below the Cowdery quotation on p. 45: "Around that mount died millions of the Jaredites." Unlike Oliver, Phelps was not a personal witness of Book of Mormon artifacts or angelic ministers. His comment here directly contradicts what Oliver wrote in Letter VII (and, in my view, the language of the text of Mormon 6). Mingling the speculation of Phelps with Oliver's statement of fact, in my view, serves to de-legitimize Oliver's direct statements.
Footnote 22 on p. 46 perpetuates the theory that Joseph (or John Taylor) was the editor of the Times and Seasons in 1842 when the anonymous articles about Central America were published. There's no historical evidence to support that theory, apart from a boilerplate legend appearing at the bottom of each issue. I've argued that, based on the actual historical evidence, William Smith was the actual editor, probably in conjunction with W.W. Phelps, and Joseph was merely the nominal editor. Either way, Packer's reaches this conclusion: "It therefore appears that in the minds of the early Church leaders, these new ideas did not contradict the concept of Cumorah being in New York."
Is is really merely a concept, though? On what basis do these scholars decide that Oliver was wrong when he declared it was a fact that Cumorah is in New York?
Packer also quotes Heber C. Kimball, but oddly omits Kimball's statement about visiting the Hill Cumorah after his conversion and observing the embankments still around the hill. These have since been plowed under, but his observation explains at least in part why he continued to teach that the Hill Cumorah was where "both of the former Nations were destroyed."
Packer spends considerable time discussing the teachings of Orson Pratt, but fails to note how Joseph edited out all of Pratt's speculation when he adapted Pratt's pamphlet to write the Wentworth letter.
[Current members of the Church will never know what Joseph wrote in the Wentworth letter because the key passage was censored in the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, apparently for the same reason that motivated the censorship in Saints; i.e., Joseph specifically identified the Lamanites as the Indians living "in this country."]
_____
A highlight of Packer's thesis is his citation on p. 49 of a BYU Professor to declare "the official position of the Church." I've blogged about that notion elsewhere.
Nowhere in his paper does Packer cite or quote President Marion G. Romney's 1975 General Conference address, which unambiguously declared that Cumorah is in New York.
_____
Packer offers an interesting section titled "The Hill Cumorah Cave Accounts," beginning on page 49.
He writes, "In the second half of the nineteenth century, a certain teaching about a cave in Cumorah began surfacing in the writings and teachings of several Church leaders." What he doesn't mention is that Oliver Cowdery discussed Mormon's depository right in Letter VII in 1835.
Then he paraphrases Heber C. Kimball this way:
Heber C. Kimball said that Joseph and others went into a cave in the Hill Cumorah and had a "vision" wherein they "saw more records than ten men could carry... There were books piled up on tables, book upon book."
He goes on to say "Where Heber C. Kimball received his knowledge of the cave is not known. Brigham Young is a likely source simply because three other accounts can be traced to him; however, it is possible that Elder Kimball got his information from Oliver Cowdery, as Brigham Young possibly did."
Had Packer read the entire context, he would have seen that Kimball cited his source: Joseph Smith himself. Here is the full quotation: http://jod.mrm.org/4/105:
Brother Mills mentioned in his song, that crossing the Plains with handcarts was one of the greatest events that ever transpired in this Church. I will admit that it is an important event, successfully testing another method for gathering Israel, but its importance is small in comparison with the visitation of the angel of God to the Prophet Joseph, and with the reception of the sacred records from the hand of Moroni at the hill Cumorah.
How does it compare with the vision that Joseph and others had, when they went into a cave in the hill Cumorah, and saw more records than ten men could carry? There were books piled up on tables, book upon book. Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments.
Again, how does it contrast with Joseph's being sent forth with his brethren to search out a location in Jackson County, where the New Jerusalem will be built, where our Father and our God planted the first garden on this earth, and where the New Jerusalem will come to when it comes down from heaven?
I mention these few things by way of contrast with the handcart operation; they are events that I have heard Joseph speak of, time and time again.of contrast with the handcart operation; they are events that I have heard Joseph speak of, time and time again.
According to Kimball, Joseph spoke of these things time and time again, although we have no direct record of what he said apart from the accounts given by those who heard him and/or Oliver.
Is it reasonable to interpret Kimball's statement as referring merely to a spiritual vision, as Packer tries to do starting on page 53?
Or, in the context, was he relating a "view," "spectacle," or "eye full" that Joseph and other had when they entered the cave? These are synonyms for "vision" that fit better in the context of the very physical description of the contents of the cave.
Notice also that Kimball promised we would have these other records if we accept the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts.
_____
On p. 50, Packer relates Woodruff's account of what President Brigham Young taught. This brings up the two sets of plates. According to Brigham Young, Joseph "did not return them [the plates] to the box from whence he had received them" but "deposited those plates upon a table or shelf" in the cave in the hill Cumorah. Yet in JS-H, Joseph says he gave the plates to the messenger.
We know he gave the plates to the messenger before leaving Harmony. Then, in Fayette, he received the plates of Nephi, which he translated there. Naturally, it was the plates of Nephi that he returned to the Hill Cumorah, after showing them to the Eight Witnesses.
Later, on p. 52, Packer includes the statement by David Whitmer that the plates were no longer in the Hill Cumorah "but not far from that place."
In my view, David was among those who helped move all the plates from the Hill Cumorah to another location "not far from" Cumorah (probably the Hill Shim, but that's another topic). Kimball said there were more plates than ten men could carry, an odd description unless someone actually tried to carry them. Brigham spoke of wagons.
Packer explains this by saying David "may have been referring to the exact place that the plates were found, and, therefore, the cave, which was nearby, could have still been in the hill proper." I don't think this explanation makes sense because David specifically said the plates were not in the Hill Cumorah.
_____
After an excellent explanation of how the Church came to acquire the Hill Cumorah, Packer describes the address given in General Conference by President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency in April 1928, after the purchase was completed. On p. 87, Packer writes, "President Ivins then spent the majority of his talk attempting to establish what he termed as 'facts' regarding the geography of the Hill Cumorah."
In my view, this characterization of President Ivins' talk is inappropriate because it frames the address as merely President Ivins' opinion. Anyone can read the talk and decide whether President Ivins was merely speculating instead of speaking formally in General Conference as a member of the First Presidency.
Besides the issue of the New York Cumorah, are there any other teachings announced by the First Presidency in General Conference that LDS intellectuals characterize as mere "false traditions" and "opinions of men" that they reject?
_____
To me, the Cumorah issue is a clear choice between the prophets and the intellectuals, as represented most recently by the revisionist Church historians responsible for Saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment