western New York
|
southern Mexico (M2C)
|
Joseph Smith (President of the Church)
|
H. A. Stebbins (RLDS scholar)
|
Oliver Cowdery (President of the Church)
|
L. E. Hills (RLDS scholar)
|
David Whitmer (3 Witnesses)
|
David A. Palmer (LDS author)
|
Brigham Young (President of the Church)
|
John Sorenson (BYU professor)
|
Heber C. Kimball (First Presidency)
|
John W. (Jack) Welch (BYU professor)
|
Wilford Woodruff (President of the Church)
|
Dan Peterson (BYU professor)
|
Parley P. Pratt (Quorum of the Twelve)
|
Kirk Magleby (LDS author)
|
Orson Pratt (Quorum of the Twelve)
|
Brant Gardner (LDS author)
|
Joseph F. Smith (President of the Church)
|
Noel Reynolds (BYU professor)
|
Joseph Fielding Smith (President of the Church)
|
Shirley Heater (CofC author)
|
Anthony W. Ivins (First Presidency)
|
Jerry Ainsworth (LDS author)
|
James E. Talmage (Quorum of the Twelve)
|
Joseph Allen (LDS author)
|
LeGrand Richards (Quorum of the Twelve)
|
Garth Norman (LDS author)
|
Marion G. Romney (First Presidency)
|
Louis C. Midgley (BYU professor)
|
Mark E. Petersen (Quorum of the Twelve)
|
John L. Lund (LDS author)
|
Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson (Presidents of the Church)
|
Tyler Griffin (BYU professor), Matt Roper (LDS author) and others affiliated with Book of Mormon Central
|
And there is no overlap between these two groups. They are as distinct as it gets.
I think this table is completely fair and accurate, but I know there are some individuals in the Mexico column who object to this classification.
However, they know as well as everyone else that the teachings about Cumorah in each column of the table are specific and clear. These are facts easily found and verified.
The most common rationalization among those in the Mexico column is that the people in the New York column were merely stating their opinions as men.
Everyone is welcome to accept that interpretation.
Of course, that interpretation would apply to anything the prophets teach that one wants to reject.
Some of those in the Mexico column have persuaded themselves that the New York Cumorah is inconsistent with a Mesoamerican setting for most of the events in the Book of Mormon, which they take as a given.
But we all see the logical fallacy there.
The Mesoamerican setting is a mere assumption, based on a subjective interpretation of the text designed to fit the assumption. It’s pure circular reasoning.
And, everyone is welcome to accept logical fallacies, including circular reasoning.
But at the same time, everyone is welcome to accept the teachings of the prophets.
No one is bound by the teachings of the intellectuals, except those who don’t know what the prophets have taught.
Which students at CES and BYU never learn.
But they can learn it here:
Source: Book of Mormon Wars
2 thoughts on “Memorial Day 2019”
I appreciate all the time and effort you put into posting these insightful/informative posts. I’ve come to really look forward to them. I really like the comparative listing in this one of those supporting the different theories. It got me thinking though – in the spirit of open comparative discussion theses posts promote, what would a listing look like that showed the inverse. What Prophets/Apostles have truly proposed/supported a M2C theory in writings/talks while which Intellectuals have supported the correct New York Cumorah? I think it would be a interesting possibly telling comparison
That’s a great comment. There are zero prophets/apostles who have proposed or supported M2C.
Some have stated or implied that the current inhabitants in Latin America are descended from Lehi, but that seems axiomatic given 2,700 years since Lehi landed. Lots of intermarriage and migrations over that time period.
Comments are closed.