
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Answers portal |
Book of Mormon Geography |
![]() |
![]() |
---|
Geography: DNA: Archaeology: Lamanites in North America: Other: |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
There are a couple of incorrect assumptions in this question.
First, it is not the case that the Church authoritatively identifies the drumlin in western New York as the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon. The Church has made it abundantly clear that it does not endorse any particular view of Book of Mormon geography.(See: Statements about Book of Mormon geography)
While we call the drumlin in New York "Hill Cumorah" based on a usage initiated early in Church history (probably by Oliver Cowdery or W. W. Phelps),[1] that does not necessarily make the two hills the same. Most LDS scholars do not think they are the same, because the New York drumlin does not meet the textual requirements for the geographic placement of the hill in relation to the narrow neck of land.[2] The views of these scholars is that the text requires a relatively short distance between Cumorah and the neck of land. David A. Palmer's criteria for the Ancient Cumorah have historically supplied some of the basis for the way most scholars understand the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah. Scholars in support of those same ideas have built upon his work, and have added their ideas to the mix over the years.
On the other hand, arguments have been made to the contrary. For example, Andrew H. Hedges (of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, who was a professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University) has documented his views. Edwin Goble has also documented his opinions on these points. These views are in support of the more traditional view of a significant distance between the neck of land and the ancient Hill Cumorah. These views provide some balance to the question of the distance between those two critical landmarks, and the other criteria in the Book of Mormon text for the Hill Cumorah.
For further information compare the two major Book of Mormon geography models:
Also note that the Book of Mormon does not state that the plates of Mormon were buried in the Cumorah; in fact, it states that the plates were not buried in Cumorah at that time, but were given to Moroni to safeguard until it came time for them to be put in their ultimate place of deposit:
Some have used this scripture to support the view that the New York drumlin is not the same hill as the place of the Nephite destruction (since that is the majority view among scholars). While that is one plausible view based on this scripture, that point is left ambiguous. Because it does not comment on the burial of the plates of Mormon decades later, it does not say anything one way or the other on that point with confidence. It does establish beyond doubt that the burial place of the rest of the plates from the people of the Nephites were buried at the hill where the Nephite destruction took place, the actual ancient Cumorah.
This took place in approximately A.D. 385. Moroni did not bury the plates of Mormon until A.D. 421. During this 36-year period Moroni explained:
During that 36-year wandering to escape the Lamanites, it seems likely that he could have traveled a great distance. If the Nephite Cumorah was not in New York, Moroni could easily have eventually come to modern New York state where he buried the plates. On the other hand, he could have easily remained in the general area of the Nephite destruction in his wanderings.
A second questionable premise is that the numbers recited in the text should be understood as accurate in the same sense we would understand those numbers today. Ancient militaristic texts, including those of the Bible, frequently exaggerated the numbers involved in battle for their own propagandistic purposes, or to simply convey the general concept of 'a very large number'. Very large numbers in the scriptures should always be taken with a grain of salt, since ancient authors (having their own purposes and approach) did not use such terms with the same precision as a modern military historian.
It has also been noted that "so-and-so and his 10,000" may use the term "10,000" as a designation for a millitary unit. Roman armies had "centuries" (or centuria) which were lead by a "centurian," which implies a hundred men. While such units originally had 100 men, the normal size of such units (even at full strength) was only 60–80 men.[3]
Interestingly, at the time of the Spanish Conquest, Bernal Diaz described Tlascalan armies in the same terms:
Without further information, it is difficult to know whether the Book of Mormon uses the term literally, in a symbolic/propagandist sense to convey a great number of dead, or as a technical millitary term familiar to Mormon and Moroni but opaque to the modern reader.
On June 17, 1877, Brigham Young related the following at a conference:
There are at least ten second hand accounts describing the story of the cave in Cumorah, however, Joseph Smith himself did not record the incident. [6] As mentioned previously, the Hill Cumorah located in New York state is a drumlin: this means it is a pile of gravel scraped together by an ancient glacier. The geologic unlikelihood of a cave existing within the hill such as the one described suggests that the experience related by the various witnesses was most likely a vision, or a divine transportation to another locale (as with Nephi's experience in 1 Nephi 11꞉1). John Tvedtnes supports this view:
The Book of Mormon text does not describe the compartment in the hill as a "cave." This word is only used in references to it outside the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Edwin Goble points out that some Adena mounds in the Eastern United States contain burial chambers. He suggests that this is a precedent in the archaeology of the general area of the New York drumlin, making the idea of a man-made chamber for the ancient records a plausible suggestion. Whatever the case, a natural cave could not exist there.
Given that the angel Moroni had retrieved the plates from Joseph several times previously, it is not unreasonable to assume that he was capable of transporting them to a different location than the hill in New York. As Tvedtnes states, "If they could truly be moved about, why not from Mexico, for example?" [8]
== Notes ==
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now