Question: Did the First Presidency identify the New York "Hill Cumorah" as the site of the Nephite final battles?

This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.

Question

Did the First Presidency identify the New York "Hill Cumorah" as the site of the Nephite final battles?

Answer

Initial letter

In 1990, F. Michael Watson (secretary to the First Presidency) sent a letter to a questioner which read as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 October 16, 1990 Bishop Darrel L. Brooks Moore Ward Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake 1000 Windemere Moore, OK 73160 Dear Bishop Brooks: I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks 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. The Church has long maintained, as attested to by 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. The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study. Sincerely yours, (signed) F. Michael Watson Secretary to the First Presidency

Clarification/Correction letter

Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy.

On April 23, 1993, he sent a clarification letter:

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 [for Book of Mormon geography] 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.[1]

Since the text of this letter was published in the FARMS Review, some critics have charged the FARMS authors with either manipulating the Church into sending the letter, or forging the letter text altogether.

Matt Roper of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship located a copy of the letter with its cover page, and sent FAIR a copy with permission to post it. The cover letter reads as follows:

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 Cumoarh, 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 that clarification. Thanks [signed] Brent [Hall]

• A scan of the cover letter is here. (Or a smaller version).
• A scan of the fax from the Office of the First Presidency is here. (Or a smaller version).

(Phone and numbers have been redacted from these scans; they are otherwise unaltered.)

Conclusion

The First Presidency's secretary apparently answered a question according to his own understanding, and then at the direction of the First Presidency later clarified/corrected his statement to indicate that while many Latter-day Saints have expressed opinions about the location of Cumorah (or other Book of Mormon geography issues), the Church has no official geography. No revelatory basis exists for any geographical scheme outside of the Book of Mormon text itself.

Critics often cite the first letter, without citing the second which corrects it. This represents a fundamental dishonesty.

Endnotes

1. [note]  Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993. Cited with commentary in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1. (1993). [161–197] link