No more contention over Book of Mormon geography

The easy (and obvious) way to have no more contention about Book of Mormon geography is through clarity, charity, and understanding. For a thorough discussion, we can apply the FAITH model, but in this post, we can summarize the issues using the all/some/none filter.

We seek to understand and respect one another by recognizing there are multiple working hypotheses, all subject to revision and improvement.

We seek charity by recognizing that well-intentioned people have different perspectives, such that we're fine with people believing whatever they want. 

We seek clarity through explicit explanations of assumptions, inferences, etc., by using the all/some/none filter.

It is often difficult to obtain clarity. Sometimes people aren't clear themselves about what they believe, about the foundation of their beliefs, or the implications of their beliefs. Bias confirmation (accepting only what confirms one's beliefs) is a common way to avoid thinking about these things, but it doesn't help others understand with clarity. Vague thinking can help assuage cognitive dissonance but it produces confusion, not clarity. 

I compiled the table below to promote clarity, charity and understanding. 

All of the positions in this table reflect published material. For references, see 

https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues

If anyone has any suggestions for more clarity, email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and I'll incorporate them.

Setting of the Book of Mormon
Relative belief in what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught
All	Some	None
Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is an actual place in the real world and is the same location as the Jaredite Ramah (Ether 15:8)	Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is an actual place in the real world and is the same location as the Jaredite Ramah (Ether 15:8)	Cumorah and Ramah are both fictional locations.
Cumorah/Ramah is in New York.	Cumorah/Ramah is anywhere but New York (such as southern Mexico, known as M2C for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory), or Panama, Baja, Peru, Malaysia, Eritrea, etc.	Cumorah/Ramah is fictional
The identification of the New York hill as Cumorah originated during Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith, as explained in D&C 128:20 and as reported by Lucy Mack Smith.	We don’t know when the false New York Cumorah theory originated, but Lucy Mack Smith’s history is unreliable because she didn’t dictate it until after Joseph died in 1844.	Cumorah is fictional so this doesn’t matter anyway, but the “some” group rejects Lucy Mack Smith’s history only when it contradicts their own theories.
Joseph Smith referred to the hill as Cumorah even before he got the plates because Moroni had taught him the name of the hill, as related by Lucy Mack Smith.	Joseph Smith did not refer to the hill as Cumorah because he didn’t know the name until he dictated the text in 1829. Lucy Mack Smith’s history is unreliable because she didn’t dictate it until after Joseph died in 1844.	Cumorah is fictional so this doesn’t matter anyway, but the “some” group rejects Lucy Mack Smith’s history only when it contradicts their own theories.
David Whitmer told Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt that he first heard the name “Cumorah” during a conversation with the divine messenger to whom Joseph had given the abridged plates before leaving Harmony, PA, in late May or early June 1829. Remembering this was the first time he heard the name “Cumorah” is an indicia of reliability and credibility.	David Whitmer told Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt that he first heard the name “Cumorah” during a conversation with the divine messenger to whom Joseph had given the abridged plates before leaving Harmony, PA, in late May or early June 1829. However, David must have conflated his experience with the messenger with later beliefs about Cumorah.	Cumorah is fictional so this doesn’t matter anyway. David probably saw a random guy on the road and Joseph invented the story of the messenger.
The messenger had the abridged plates in his knapsack and said he was going to Cumorah.	The messenger had the plates in his knapsack and said he was going to Cumorah. But even if David recalled the conversation correctly, the messenger could not have been referring to the hill in New York as Cumorah/Ramah. He must have been speaking metaphorically or referring to a hill somewhere else, such as in Mexico.	The messenger didn’t have any plates.  Notice how the “some” group rejects the Cumorah aspect of David Whitmer’s account only because it contradicts their own theories about geography.
David Whitmer separately told Edward Stevenson that the messenger declined a ride and said “I am going over to Cumorah.”	David Whitmer separately told Edward Stevenson that the messenger declined a ride and said “I am going over to Cumorah.” Again, David must have conflated his experience with the messenger with later beliefs about Cumorah.	Another account by David of the story Joseph made up.
David Whitmer told Edward Stevenson that “the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites.”	David was wrong about this because, according to historian  Andrew Jensen, it was Moroni who had charge of the plates.	The confusion between Nephi and Moroni shows that it was all made up.
David Whitmer likely told his experience with the messenger to Zina Young in 1832 because he was one of the missionaries who baptized her family and she asked Edward Stevenson to ask David about the account before he left Utah to visit David.	It is merely speculation that David related the account to Zina Young in 1832 because she could have had another reason to ask Edward Stevenson to ask David about the account when he left Utah to visit David.	Whether Zina heard David’s story in 1832 doesn’t make it any more credible because Joseph invented the story about the messenger, who was really just a guy on the road.
During their mission to the Lamanites (DC 28, 30, 32) in 1830, Parley P. Pratt reported that Oliver Cowdery explained to the Indians that Moroni had anciently called the hill in New York “Cumorah.”	During their mission to the Lamanites (DC 28, 30, 32) in 1830, Parley P. Pratt reported that Oliver Cowdery explained to the Indians that Moroni had anciently called the hill in New York “Cumorah.” However, Oliver was merely relating the false tradition that he or someone else had invented or assumed.	During their mission to the Lamanites (DC 28, 30, 32) in 1830, Parley P. Pratt reported that Oliver Cowdery explained to the Indians that Moroni had anciently called the hill in New York “Cumorah.” However, Oliver was merely relating the false tradition that he or someone else had invented or assumed.
As Assistant President of the Church, Oliver Cowdery wrote an essay about Cumorah to refute charges that the Book of Mormon was fiction (published as Letter VII).	As Assistant President of the Church, Oliver Cowdery wrote an essay about Cumorah to refute charges that the Book of Mormon was fiction (published as Letter VII.	As Assistant President of the Church, Oliver Cowdery wrote an essay about Cumorah to refute charges that the Book of Mormon was fiction (published as Letter VII).
He declared it is a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates.	He declared it is a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates.	He declared it is a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates.
Oliver had good reason to know it was a fact because he and Joseph had visited the repository of Nephite records in the hill on multiple occasions, as reported by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and others.	Oliver was merely relating his own opinion that Cumorah is in New York and he was wrong. The accounts of Oliver and Joseph visiting the repository of Nephite related multiple visions of another location, probably the mountain in southern Mexico.	The “some” group is correct to the extent that there never was any such repository of Nephite records.
Oliver never claimed revelation about Cumorah because he relied on his own experience at the hill, as well as what Joseph told him. He also never claimed revelation about the restoration of the Priesthood because he related his actual experience.	Oliver never claimed revelation about Cumorah, except that whatever experience he related to Brigham Young must have been a vision of a hill somewhere other than in New York.	Neither Oliver nor Joseph had any experience with an angel who restored the Priesthood, nor any experience with actual ancient records.
Prophets have reiterated what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah and were correct.	Prophets have reiterated what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah but were wrong because they were merely expressing their own opinions.	Prophets have reiterated what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah but were wrong because they were merely expressing their own opinions about a fictional location.
Extrinsic evidence corroborates the New York Cumorah.	Extrinsic evidence does not corroborate the New York Cumorah.	Extrinsic evidence does not corroborate the New York Cumorah.