In respect to the story of Zelph as set out in the published History of the Church, Volume II, under the authorized name of the Church, in some circles there seems to be some questions. I am currently a member of a 'discussion' group who share ideas about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Without exposing anyone's identity, other than my own, I would like to post an answer to much about 'Zelph' that is currently being discussed there and elsewhere. I will refer to the incident as the 'Zelph Story' as it is often referenced that way. Myself, I prefer to reference it as a revelation from the Almighty to Joseph Smith upon the matter and quote it from the History of the Church as such.
In the intellectual halls of learning within the Church there are questions concerning the 'Zelph Story' as published by the Church in its 'History of the Church.' Some seem to treat the matter as some sort of conspiracy and further seem to pick and chose which of the Lord's authorities to trust or concur with and which to not. For example if President Joseph Fielding Smith where to be conferred with on the matter of Zelph, there would be little question upon the matter.
Some do the same with the Church's latest 'changes to the Book of Mormon,' which are made to make the book 'more correct' and in correlation with correct English (which itself tends to vary) and to bring the text more in line with 'original manuscripts.' 'BUT' do-do-do-do ~ do-do-do-do, is there really some under lying conspiracy to alter the 'teachings' and 'meaning' of the Book of Mormon because the 'Church' has 'altered' its text in some respects??? NOT! But why not begin those rumors and start the intellectual 'wheels' of higher learning upon that matter within the Church - 'sic'm boys.'
We speculate and dissect and use our intellectual prowess to detect what was 'done' without knowing first hand from the people actually involved, as to the where-as and where-for of the matters. Such 'mystery' cases are so appealing to the 'inquiring' mind of inquisition. And we love to put the 'Church' on trial. Well done my dear Watsons. You do love to delve into the mysteries so.
Sister Priddis, who sheds much light on a number of matters, yet few agree with her final conclusions upon the Book of Mormon geography, makes a statement on page 145 of her book 'The Book and the Map.' It points out there that from Fletcher B. Hammond's book, 'The Geography of the Book of Mormon,' that the 1904 edition of the 'History of the Church' reproduces the words of the original entry in the Prophet's journal. And lo, and behold the words "the hill Cumorah" and "the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites" are not there. Revelation upon revelation to the minds of inquiry who seek through the means of 'detection' the truth of the matter beyond the words published by the Church, especially 'later' authorities and personnel of some question. And the plot doth thicken. Oh thank you Fletcher Hammond. Thank you for plucking that 'thorn' from our side, pointing out that the Book of Mormon's hill Cumorah is not in New York. And therefor it must certainly have been in Central America as you have concluded, rather than New York. Thank you for removing us from the belief that the 'straggling nation' of Nephites were pursued by hordes of hateful Lamanites in making that 'Armageddon (spell it right) flight' and march of blood from Central America to the Great Lakes regions of the New England northeastern United States. What an insightful dissection you have made upon which many can contend with a great number of the general authorities of the Church, past and present. Good work by dear fellow.
What deep dark secrets lie within the walls of the Church to have changed the 1904 version of the Zelph story to include what can only be found in the journals of the likes of Heber C. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff. It is only in the journal of Heber C. Kimbal that 'the last destruction among the Lamanites' is found and without the mention of Nephites at all. Of course forget that the peoples of the Book of Mormon where often commonly refereed to in the early days of the Church by their contemporary designation 'Lamanites,' which did include the Nephites of the ancient past. And of course the 'Lamanites' properly referencing only the American Indian could hardly have implied that the Lamanites had all been destroyed for they still quite obviously existed. The only 'last destruction' was that of the Nephite nation and not the Lamanite nation at all. And of course who can trust Wilford Woodruff who is the only person to record the name of the 'hill Cumorah' in his journal. Poor Wilford who but the Lord could have ever put such trust in such a man?
Now even through all of Kenneth Godfrey's muddle in his often sited article of FARMS fame (The Story of Zelph by Kenneth W. Godfrey), he does point to couple of interesting facts. The first is that the 'Richards manuscript' (Willard Richards who survived the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith though in the same room with him. Richards was one of the trusted historians the Prophet Joseph had placed in charge of preparing the History of the Chruch) did contain the words 'hill Cumorah' and 'the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.' But in the Richard's manuscript of 1842, they had been lined out as though edited from the text. But in 1846, after the Prophet's death, the 'Times and Seasons' did publish the Zelph Story. Now the Times and Seasons is a strange animal. When 'detectives' of intellectual merit agree with what was published in the Times and Seasons, they do love to quote from it, and when they do not agree with what is published in the Times and Seasons then quite a different story is heard. But the Times and Seasons' account of the story of Zelph does keep in the account both the words 'hill Cumorah' and the words 'the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.' And it is this 'version' which is consistent with the now 'later' and currently published History of the Church.
So now the question is, which version is correct? Or perhaps a better question would be, 'why in the 1904 version did the Church not include the words 'hill Cumorah' and 'the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites?' And why in the later and current versions of the publication are those words now 'back' in the Zelph Story as published in the Times and Seasons? What happened between 1904 and the present versions to motivate the Church and its authorities to authorize the placing 'back' into the Zelph story the words which where in the Times and Seasons, yet edited out of the 1904 and presumed earlier versions of the History of the Church?
Now for an explanation, which does maintain the integrity of the authorities of the Church involved, which also thwarts any type of 'Conspiracy Theory,' those with an open mind may wish to at least consider certain facts. Fact: the Golden Plates and their hiding place was a protected 'secret' from the beginning. Though discussed with his immediate family, as attested by Lucy Mack Smith's history, the name 'hill Cumorah' was not spoken publicly as the location of where the plates were hide by the Prophet Joseph Smith. For a time, near, at and after the completion of the translation of the plates, certain ' witnesses' where giving accounts to various groups that it was the 'Hill Cumorah' in New York where the plates had been extracted and that it was the same as the ancient hill cited in the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer tells the story occurring in 1829 of the angel Moroni carrying the plates from Pennsylvania to Peter Whitmer Sr.'s house in New York for safe passage, and Moroni stating 'he was traveling to the land of Cumorah.' Martin Harris in 1830 gives a complete story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in public to a financier, which includes the use of the name of the ancient hill of the Nephites as the Hill Cumorah in the state of New York. He does this when he applies for a loan to finance the printing of the Book of Mormon before the book is ever printed. Oliver Cowdery in his testimony to the Lamanites during his mission to them, which began in 1830. He testifies that the ancient Nephite Hill of Cumorah in New York is from whence the plates were taken. There is the word of the three witnesses upon it.
Now what was there about revealing too much about the Hill Cumorah in New York that would cause the History of the Church to be edited of the name Cumorah and the other inference in the story of Zelph from implicating it as the ancient hill of the Nephites? And why did Joseph Smith only once make it a matter of 'public' record, only in the 128 section of the Doctrine and Covenants in verse 20? Why would the 'secret of Cumorah' need to still be maintained after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, at least upon the part of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Others had referenced it publicly and placed in printing in various publications authorized and sanctioned by the Prophet Joseph. So why was he not so forth coming with the facts himself?
Perhaps the answer is held in a straight forward reading of a set of revealed facts by the Prophet Brigham Young only a few months before is death at the special conference which established the first stake of Zion in Davis County, Utah. Yet many 'investigators of the facts' love to edit President Young's simple statements by adding their own preferred explanatons to them. In 1877 Brigham Young took the 'liberty' of telling a well-known incident among certain of the brethren, which had been held in confidence. The reason why he took this liberty was so that the information would not be lost and forgotten to the saints of later eras. President Young told of the exact details and experience of the returning of the Golden Plates back to the hands of Moroni, which in other histories had merely been alluded to by stating that Joseph had returned the plates to Moroni's keeping. Joseph and Oliver 'walked' the plates back to the hill of Cumorah there in New York. The hill opened up to reveal a great room filled with records. Joseph and Oliver visited that room upon two occasions according to the Prophet Brigham Young. Now why wouldn't the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church want the world to know that the hill in the state of New York was filled with records engraved upon precious metal plates? I can hardly think of a reason. The early American public of the 1830s so dearly loved the 'Mormons' that they even took the time and trouble to give us a martyr for us to build our religion upon. And they percesuted us until we had to leave the country in 1847 to what was then a part of Mexico, the Valley of the Great Salt Lake. Certainly they could be trusted with such information.
Now I don't have the information at hand as to just when and under whom the changes were made in the current version of the History of the Church. Those changes included a return to the use of 'hill Cumorah' and 'the last great stuggle of the Lamanites and Nephites' as published in the Times and Seasons of 1846. I do have a 1948 printing Copyrighted by President George Albert Smith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where the questionable alteration according to the inquiring minds of some does exist. Other than that, I do not know just when the change may have occurred and why. I don't know how long the 1904 version stood before being changed to 'more correctly' record the facts of the matter. (If Hammond can thwart against it in words, then why can't I take the same liberty to state such support for it in words?) But I do have an understanding of some events which took place between 1904 and 1948 which would allow the 'secrets of Cumorah' to let out of the protective bag so to speak. And that is that the Church in the late 1920's, did obtain by purchase the property and site known as the Hill Cumorah, the actual hill from which Joseph had in the 1820s extracted under the supervision of the angel Moroni the Golden Plates. The very hill which the un-editorialized account of Brigham Young states is the location of all the records of the Nephites as placed there by the hand of Mormon during the time of the last struggle of the Lamanites and the Nephites. Now with the property of that sacred hill securely in the hand of the Church, I can see reason why the History of the Church could during that same period be altered. It could during that time be altered to reflect more of the truth of the matter concerning the hill and land of Cumorah than had previously been thought prudent within the halls of the Church's governing body. And it could be done without it having to be a 'conspiracy' of any nature. A 'conspiracy' held by some to thwart the lovers of the 'Middle American' model of the geography of the Book of Mormon, causing them to experience much grief and sorrow. A plot by the 'elders' of the Church of poking thorns in the sides of 'intellectual adversaries' as asserted by the all knowing Hammond and other professors of the school of intellectual discovery and dissected detection. And one of those great villains, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency did at that time, as many had done before and since, have the nerve and utter audacity to testify that the Hill Cumorah in New York was the very same hill of Cumorah and Ramah of the Book of Mormon.
During the time of the life of the Savior the 'ruling body' of the Jews,
the Sanhedrin or 'Sarim,' had began to have such 'intellectual' division upon
the tenants of the faith. Surely we are not at that point today between the
'intellectuals of proposed theory' over the 'anointed members of Church
government and authority.' But the parallel is just too tempting to not
mention. The Sadducean elements had establish their position upon the floor
of the Sanhedrin though the Pharisees still had the predominating influence
upon it. The Sadducees where preaching the concepts that there was no
resurrection and no life after death. That is hardly the level of dispute
over the mere geography of the Book of Mormon now is it. But the traditional
positions of the predominant Pharisees were under challenge still the same by
the intellectualism of the Sadducees movement who where of the educated
aristocracy, being quite powerful though quite small in numbers in their
treatment of religious questions. I have to wonder if it were such the same
'princely' aristocracy in the days of Lehi which ran the Sarim during that
time to the point of having power over the puppet King Zedekiah. But now my
mind is wondering to other topics, so I must finished with this one. - Adieu.
Hit Counter: