Answering a Heartland Theorist’s Erroneous Claims – Part I

In answer to a lengthy comment about one of our videos on YouTube under nephicode.com, this one on Frederick G. Williams, “What Was on the Sheet of Paper?” the submitted comment covered 34 separate points, almost all of which were erroneous as any simple research on the subjects would have readily pointed out. In answering the overall erroneous comments with simple “sound bites,” or in a single paragraph or two would neither be fair nor do justice to the numerous errors that were cited. Thus we have listed down each of these 34 separate assertions and answered each separately. The viewer/reader’s comment is in italics following (•), and our reply or response is in regular type: 
•"With all due respect,” 
Response: It is interesting that this phrase was initially only used within the military by junior officers when addressing a senior officer over a difference of opinion, or a desire to express a counter idea.

The senior officer, because of his positon, deserved the military respect of the inferior and the phrase had purpose. It later was used by politicians, who often used terms like “the honorable” to politely address a colleague, whether sincere or not, and thus the phrase seemed to fit. Because of Hollywood movies, the phrase became more often used by anyone trying to be somewhat polite to another person but disagreeing with them, which led to its overuse and lack of true meaning. Today, it has become a sarcastic phrase and its usage is disrespectful in tone and purpose. In fact, the 2008 English Oxford dictionary, when compiling a list of the most irritating phrases in the English language, have placed this phrase as the fifth most irritating, because it has acquired an intended disrespectful and sarcastic undertone cloaked in a feigned courtesy. 
•“this video and claims are absurd nonsense!” 
Response: Since you have not said which part is absurd nonsense to you, it is difficult to respond. However, the idea of Williams’ knowledge of the sea and his being the navigator for Capt. Oliver Hazard Perry during the War of 1812 on Lake Erie even though a civilian, does suggest that Williams’ ideas pertaining to the sea would be better and more profound than ‘absurd nonsense.’ 
•“No doubt, Frederick G. Williams was a great and accomplished man” 
Response: Yes he was, and the prophet Joseph Smith relied upon him to a great extent and in addition to his calling in the First Presidency, at the time also served as the prophet’s personal physician (and that of most of the Church leaders), as well as Joseph’s personal secretary, scribe, historical recorder, and close friend. 
•“but, he never claimed to have received revelation on where the Book of Mormon lands were” 
Response: Here you err. He never openly discussed his understanding with anyone, unless it was possibly with the prophet in private. But he wrote a note with the information about where Lehi landed for his family to learn about after his death in which he remarked about the Angel sitting beside him at the Kirtland Temple dedication, and said the information was received by him as a private revelation—which all members are entitled to (by the way, he was not the only authority at the time that acknowledged an angel had been there and sat between him and another of the brethren). 
•“nor told anyone about the details of the Nephites and Lamanites, as Joseph Smith did”

Response: Joseph Smith for years before actually receiving the plates, used to tell his family stories about the Nephites, etc., that enthralled them most every night around the dinner table or fireplace. His mother wrote about the events, saying: “From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time, and every evening we gathered our children together and gave our time up to the discussion of those things which he instructed to us. I think that we presented the most peculiar aspect of any family that ever lived upon the earth, all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, listening in breathless anxiety to the religious teachings of a boy eighteen years of age who had never read the Bible through by course in his life. For Joseph was less inclined to the study of books than any child we had, but much more given to reflection and deep study” (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Liverpool, 1853; revised Soctt F. Proctor, Bookcraft, 1996, p110-12).
    However, her writings did not reveal any details of what Joseph divulged to them from the many contacts he had with those angels who tutored him over those intervening years before he actually started his mission of translating the plates. In addition, a great deal of comment and information is attributed to Joseph Smith but much of it has simply been claimed or misinterpreted of him by others. He himself rebuked others for the fact that whatever he said, even when expressing his personal opinion, was soon recorded as fact and doctrine. 
•“The truth is,” 
Response: It would appear that you believe you know the truth in this, yet, the Church has purposefully avoided making any claim as to where Lehi landed, and where the Nephites were located, other than to talk about the Americas (a term in their day, by the way that meant both North and South America, a fact which the prophets and Church leaders have often verified in their conference talks on the subject of the Land of Promise, Zion, and the general area of the Nephites and later Lamanites). In addition, when Joseph said that Moroni told him the people of the record were “the people of this continent,” he was referring to both North and South America, since until just before WWII in the late 1930s, the term American continent was so used—because of the war, Congress decided that these should really be separate land areas and so designated it and the school books and history classes began to teach North and South America; however, half of the world even today refers to North and South America as one continent). Even Church Leaders have stressed the point, along with letters from the First Presidency on several occasions reminding members that they do not have any position on the location of the Nephite people. Thus, there is no known “truth” about this, and those who claim there are simply do not understand the Church position and that of the Brethren. 
•“the Hill Cumorah is in New York,” 
Response: The drumlin hill in New York where Moroni showed Joseph the plates were buried, is definitely in New York. I personally have been on that hill and walked all over it and around it—the hill is low, rounded (like half of the length of an egg sitting on the ground) and in many ways does not agree or meet Mormon’s description of the hill mentioned in the scriptural record where the battles were fought. 

•“the same hill where Moroni testified he hid the plates where his people perished in battle”

The modern Hill Cumorah in western New York 

Response: Again, you err. Moroni never made any such comment. The fact that the plates in Joseph’s day were buried in the hill is in no way connected to the original hill by Moroni. In fact, he never called it “the hill Cumorah,” and never did “Joseph” in all his writing and talking about it. The hill was unnamed prior to Joseph obtaining the plates there, and afterward was called several things, included “Mormon Hill,” “Gold Bible Hill,” as well as “Inspiration Point.” It was Oliver Cowdery, in a letter (Letter VII to William W. Phelps), later published in the July 1835 Messenger and Advocate, which led to the members calling the hill in New York the Hill Cumorah. However, Moroni never testified of anything (angels do not “testify,” they declare the word of the Lord). In addition, Moroni never told us where he was going to hide the records when he was finished with them. His statement was brief but clear: “Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not” (Mormon 8:4). In fact, the chances of Moroni being around the hill Cumorah 36 years later when the Lamanites were all over the land seeking to kill any Nephite they could find is quite improbable.
(See the next post, “Answering a Heartland Theorist’s Erroneous Claims – Part II,” on more of this reader’s comments and our responses)