John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris Jr.
Is Not Cumorah Still Cumorah?
~ Jumping ON? Or Jumping OFF? ~

by Don R. Hender

Many have taken Elder Widtsoe's often qouted and referred to article as a 'jumping off' point where from they can divert to whatever theory of Book of Mormon Geography their intellectual minds might contrive. And while so repeatedly refering to Elder Widsoe, they just as infrequently do not pay any attention to the numerous other authorities and their statements upon the matter. Which if they would pay half as much attention to them, they would not so readily see in Elder Widsoe's article a 'jumping off point' but rather an offered 'jumping on point.' And that one 'jumping on point' would be to begin and accept that the one fixed sight that any such Book of Mormon geography can reliably begin with is that of the location of the 'land and hill of Cumorah.'

Yet, from an often quoted statement in an article in the July, 1950, Improvement Era, many Mesoamerican theorist would promote the concept that there was a severe question as to whether Cumorah was Cumorah in the minds of the Brethern, including even John A. Widtsoe. While the John A. Widtsoe reference to the 1842 Times and Season’s article which reacted to the discovery of the Mayan ruins by Stephens and Catherwood is clear. Little is said about the 'immediate qualifiying disclaimer' stated in that same 1842 reactionary statement. That immediate qualifying disclaimer stated, ‘We are not going to declare that positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, . . . we are of the opinion . . . [that it is] one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.’   Such an immediate qualifying disclaimer should warrant some notice and gets very little particularly from the Mesoamerican theorist. That the 'news' story was quite reactionary and not revelationary should be quite aparent to all who read it objectively. For since when does a revelation from God ever carry with it such a qualifying disclaimer? It was a matter of reactionary excitement over discovery of magnificent ancient ruins in the lands of the Book of Mormon which critics had been discounting as non-existant. And though the Prophet Joseph Smith assumed responsibility for the contents of the Times and Seasons, the pronoun ‘WE’ in the quoted disclaimer would project that concept of editing or censoring a piece of News which was not solely of one man’s writing. One might even conclude that the Prophet would not himself have use the plural 'We' unless the article had been first written by say John Taylor and then 'edited' with kindness by the Prophet. And certainly 'one of the cities of the Nephites' mentioned in the Book of Mormon, could well have been one such city north of the narrow neck as being exclusively attributed to the land of Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land. Why is that not as widely considered?

Now as for John A. Widtsoe’s own views on the matter, I quote from a book under the authorship of his name.  And as you read, consider two frames of reference.  First consider the mind set of the author's message if Cumorah isn’t Cumorah according to the Mesoamerican theorists. In such a case, the references to the hill Cumorah being that where the plates were buried becomes confusing double talk surrounding an argument about Cumorah not being the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. Then second, consider it again from the simpleness of the message when Cumorah is Cumorah and the total lack of confusion in the matter. Now what is the real full intent of the original author in the matter?  Ask yourself, should such a confussion be introduced into all the words and works of the early brethren trying to out think if they really knew or questioned Cumorah as they spoke with such clearness about it or not? Should there be such quibbling about what the meaning of what ‘is’ is, or over the matter of Cumorah being or not being Cumorah when it is obvious that the writer may not state such, yet the clear straight forwardness of his message is only preverved when such is the conclusion?

(SEVEN CLAIMS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, p. 16 by John A Widtsoe)

"Joseph Smith declared that a heavenly visitor, Moroni by name, appeared to him during the night of September 21 and the morning and forenoon of September 22, 1823, and among other things, told him of the existence of a collection of gold plates buried in a hill not far from Joseph Smith's home, on which plates the history of the early inhabitants of America had been engraven by a succession of historians. Joseph Smith further declared that he was led to the spot where the plates were buried in the hill Cumorah, and that after repeated annual visits covering a period of four years, he was finally allowed on September 22, 1827, to take possession of the plates for the purpose of translating a part of them. The translation was accomplished through "the gift and power of God." Joseph Smith did not claim in any way to be learned in languages or to know the language in which the book was written. Note his own words: "These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." (Mill. Star, 19:118; Hist. of Church 4:537.)

Again, consider the involved explanation that must be used to thwart such a simple statement which follows if the Mesoamercian theory of Cumorah not being Cumorah has to intervene an explanation here. Then consider the clear and clean thought process if one but accepts that these brethren knew very well where with they spoke and that Cumorah simply was Cumorah.

(SEVEN CLAIMS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, p. 26 by John A. Widtsoe)

"There was no secrecy about the fact that Joseph Smith had received the plates and was engaged in the translation of them. He [Joseph Smith] had told his parents from time to time of his various heavenly visitations. He [Jospeh Smith] had reported his visit to the Hill Cumorah to see the plates. . . . “

The fact that Joseph Smith refered to the hill as Curmorah in the early years in his conversation to his parents and others is confirmed by the record of Joseph's history produced by his mother Lucy Mack Smith.

Often the quibbler will make much to do about nothing.  Cumorah had always been Cumorah and I would like to say, it always will be.  Often as not in the writings of the early brethren, they need only say the name Cumorah and all would understand all that was tied to what they where saying as the ancient hill of the Nephites where Joseph obtained the plates.  No further clarification was needed.  Cumorah was Cumorah.  Today, the Mesoamerican Theorists press to make that no longer to be the case.  And what is lost to the student of Chruch History and Gospel History is that much of the works of the brethren are being ‘edited’ and ‘censored’ by the concept that they knew not where with they spoke and we have to academically correct their words which where so plain, straight forward and simple.  It make me wonder if that is not the route which the pure Gospel of Adam and Moses and others went through by its handling under the hands of the prideful Jews who would transcribe and edit their words to fit the thoughts of the Jewish later realms of academia? Such a lose, it makes one want to cry.

Consider the burden of restructuring the meanings of every reference ever made by those referring to Cumorah, and whether or not they really knew where of they spoke or not.  The round of thought becomes, ‘Cumorah is not Cumorah, or at least not the ancient Cumorah but the new Cumorah.’  And why then did they ever call the new Cumorah after the name of the old Cumorah if they knew it was not the old Cumorah.  Or why did they just assume the hill from which the plates were taken was the old Cumorah if it was never told them that it was.  And the confusion of thought would continue and undermine whether any of the early Brethren knew whereof they spoke on any number of issues or not.  Such is the scope of Modern Censoring the words of authoritative figures spoken in the past and where does it stop?

It is easy to see that under such, one could very well become more attentative to whether a given General Authority knew about Cumorah or not, rather than focusing on what the message of the Word of God from that authority was. Elder George Q. Cannon did well to state against it. And President Joseph Fielding Smith was too kind in his words as he proclaimed against it.  What more can be said?

Now one last word from Elder Widtsoe. Many point to Elder Widtsoe's article as to whether the Book of Mormon Geography is known or not. His conclusion that it is not, but that it might one day be by studying the matter, is a grand jumping off place for those who would 'theorize' as to the geography and conclude based on their own 'dissection' of the matter. However I believe they are missing the rudimentry point. Elder Widtsoe gives 5 points where students may begin [that is 'jump on'] with their endeavor, AND he points out that they are to varying degrees reliable. This meant that even these were speculative to some degree or at least questioned by some. I'd like to qoute just the thrid point and close with a comment.

Third, the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were obtained by Joseph Smith is definitely known. In the days of the Prophet this hill was known among the people as Cumorah. This is a fixed point in Book of Mormon later history. There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah-not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place. A name, says one, may be applied to more than one hill; and plates containing the records of a people, sacred things, could be moved from place to place by divine help. However, the hill known today as Cumorah in northern New York is a fixed, known point. IS BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY KNOWN?
By John A. Widtsoe
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TWELVE
(Is Book of Mormon Geography Known? by John A. Widtsoe , Improvement Era, 1950, Vol. Liii. July, 1950. No. 7. .)

Now, what can be said? Elder Widtsoe indicated that these points might be used by students as starting points. Oh how readily a starting point is disgarded by some and to them becomes but a 'jumping off point'! Yes, the hill Cumorah is in question by some who state that a name may apply to more than one place. But the overwhelming evidence which is ignored is that those who state that Cumorah is Cumorah are our Prophets and Leaders. Cumorah is one fixed point from which the Geography of the Book of Mormon may solidly begin. Elder Widtsoe is not stating that one should throw it away because some one says a name can be applied in more than one place. Elder Widtsoe is merely stating the information and you may keep or disgard Cumorah. If you disgard it, you have lost your one fixed starting point and are entirely left to your own imagination and dissection of the matter. A dangerous place to begin indeed, without any sure footing, in my opinion.

---

Rev. 9-30-11

Return to Book of Mormon Geography Home Page
Return to Cumorah is Cumorah Home Page