Yesterday we looked at the new Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography, which stated:

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.

According to this policy, Book of Mormon Central and other members of the M2C citation cartel should cease promoting M2C immediately.

They won’t, of course. But until they do, we’ll keep pointing it how directly they are contravening the new policy.
_____

Some people wonder how the M2C advocates are implying either prophetic or Church support for their theories. (Actually, they imply both.)

Today let’s look at Book of Mormon Central, which I call Book of Mormon Central Censor (BOMCC) because they actively promote M2C and censor information that contradicts M2C.

It’s very unfortunate, actually. I like everyone at BOMCC. I think they do a lot of good, and I use their resources all the time. But their focus on M2C taints everything they do. Readers and viewers can never be sure if they are reading/watching accurate information or editorial promotion of M2C. Usually it’s the latter.

Their censorship of other viewpoints is anti-academic, the opposite of inclusive, and a direct violation of the Church’s long-stated policy of neutrality.

They will never change because they’ve convinced themselves their theories are right and that they have prophetic and Church support for their theories.

Every theory of Book of Mormon geography has critics and supporters. I encourage people to believe whatever works for them. But I oppose censorship.

This is where I disagree with BOMCC: I encourage people to make informed decisions by learning all the facts, including the teachings of the prophets along with the various sciences.

I don’t claim prophetic or Church support because the Church, “officially,” is completely neutral on these issues. I censor nothing. I seek input and correction if I ever misstate a fact or misrepresent an opinion or theory. I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything; instead, I encourage education and comparisons of different ideas. I even encourage people go to the M2C web pages and read their material to see for themselves. In this very post, I’m linking to BOMCC websites. I’ve linked to websites that promote other theories as well, so everyone can see what everyone else thinks.

Now, let’s compare by seeing how BOMCC advocates the M2C theory and claims prophetic and Church support for their theory.
_____

M2C advocacy

First, note that it’s very logo shows it promotes M2C. It features four languages they think are scriptural: Egyptian, Greek, Latin, and Mayan.

BMAF logo showing M2C

Second, BOMCC is merely a legal front for BMAF, the 501(c)(3) organization that donors are actually contributing to. BMAF’s corporate mission is “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”

BOMCC promotes M2C through the selection of material it puts in its archive, through its articles called Kno-Whys, through its educational outreach programs, and through its art collection and contests.

I think it’s great when people donate to BOMCC, so long as donors realize they are donating to support the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorah’s theory which teaches that:

1. The events of the Book of Mormon took place entirely in Mesoamerica. The hill in New York where Joseph found the plates is not the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. That hill is somewhere in southern Mexico.
2. Anyone who disagrees with M2C is naive, uninformed, and wrong.You have to be trained in Mesoamerican studies to completely understand and interpret the Book of Mormon and Church history.
3. Past prophets who taught that Cumorah is in New York were expressing their private opinions and were wrong. Instead of letting Church members know what the prophets have taught, it’s better to focus on the teachings of current M2C intellectuals.
4. It’s important to censor information that contradicts M2C so Church members won’t be confused by other ideas and comparisons. It’s also important to depict M2C in Church media, visitors centers, etc.

Again, I’m fine with people believing all of this–but it should be an informed decision, not the result of viewpoint-enforcing censorship and sophistry.

Among the considerations people should make when deciding whether to accept and support M2C are these:

1. M2C supports the arguments of the critics, such as the CES Letter.
2. No non-LDS Mayan experts see any connection between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica or the Mayans.
3. Teaching people that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah can impact faith. Long ago, Elder and President Joseph Fielding Smith warned that the idea of “two Cumorahs” would cause members of the Church to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. We should ask whether we see that warning being fulfilled all around us.

There is no stronger advocate of M2C than BOMCC.
_____

Claiming prophetic and Church support

BOMCC doesn’t just imply prophetic and Church support; it outright claims it.

Their entire pitch to donors is based on their claim for prophetic and Church support!

Here’s one of the FAQs on its web page, designed to solicit money from Church members:

Relationship of Book of Mormon Central to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

All BMC executives, board members, and employees are active, faithful, believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of our volunteers are members of Community of Christ or Restoration Branch congregations. BMC receives no funds directly from the Church, only via the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation, and is not controlled in any way by the Church. The semi-official Church News ran an article about BMC in January, 2016. Most of our readership are Latter-day Saints. Church departments have met with us to understand precisely what we are doing. Lds.org links to bookofmormoncentral.org and we anticipate more links in the future. Some full-time CES employees volunteer with us. The Church has begun licensing the LDS scriptures to outside entities, and BMC received the first such license so that we can re-publish these sacred texts with engaging enrichment material such as art, music, explanatory notes, etc. We held our 2016 Moroni Day celebration in the Joseph Smith Building on Temple Square. The Church has sent some of their experts to consult with us and help us improve certain technical skills.

BMC is not officially endorsed by the Church, although we are a trusted independent organization. Members of the Twelve and the Seventy have keynoted BMC events. Church leaders and employees work with us both as private individuals and occasionally in official capacities. We hope our efforts help all of the religious organizations within the Restoration Movement who cherish the Book of Mormon. We hope our materials prove useful to missionaries working with investigators. We hope our approach helps many people stay in the boat as Elder Ballard taught in his October, 2014 & October, 2016 General Conference addresses. Our publications ultimately depend on research. Research is inherently exploratory and uncertain. Being completely independent empowers BMC to take calculated risks which the official Church would not be comfortable undertaking. If we are successful, the Church benefits. If we are not successful, the Church is not embarrassed. We support the Church’s mission to help more of God’s children feast upon the words of Christ in the Book of Mormon.

I think it’s great when people donate to BOMCC, just so long as they realize they are contributing to M2C and to an organization that violates the Church policy of neutrality.

More screen captures from https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/donate

That means the M2C citation cartel can no longer claim prophetic and/or Church support for M2C.

Below I’ll show the original and revised versions, compared side to side.
_____

Claiming prophetic and Church support

Supporting the prophets

But if the definitions are not required by the text, and especially if they aren’t even likely, any resulting consensus is phony. Such a consensus is merely the result of circular thinking.

M2C intellectuals have reached a “consensus” by agreeing on definitions of terms. For example, they say every usage of the terms narrow pass and narrow passage refers to the same geographical feature that is found within the narrow neck of land, which they say is the same as the narrow neck and the small neck.

I think these terms refer to different features. That’s why they’re different terms.

I’m not saying anyone is “right” or “wrong.” People can interpret the text however they want. Here, I want to give some context for one of these terms: “narrow pass” so you can make your own informed decisions.
_____

Size.

The term “narrow” is subject to a variety of interpretations because it is relative; i.e., “narrow” compared with what? As an adjective, the term means “(especially of something that is considerably longer or higher than it is wide) of small width; limited in extent, amount, or scope; restricted.”

As a noun, it means “a narrow channel connecting two larger areas of water,” but in the Book of Mormon it is used as an adjective.

One example of the term suggests a common usage in Joseph Smith’s environment.

In 1779, Caleb Brewster wrote a letter to Benjamin Tallmadge. Brewster was a spy for George Washington in the Revolutionary War. He was reporting his observations from Long Island, New York when he wrote:

Dear Sir. I have returned from the Island this day. Genl. Erskine remains yet at Southampton. He has been reininfoced [sic] to the number of 2500. They have three redoubts at South and East Hampton and are heaving up works at Canoe Place at a narrow pass before you get into South Hampton. They are building a number of flat bottom boats. There went a number of carpenters down last week to South Hampton. It is thought by the inhabitants that they will cross over to New London after the Continental Frigates. 

http://www.blackrockhistory.org/letters-of-caleb-brewster/

Those familiar with Long Island will recognize these place names (I’ve visited Riverhead, where my grandparents lived, and I have ancestors who lived in New York in the 1600s).

Here’s a map of the area:

The distance from Canoe Place, where the British were “heaving up works” and South Hampton, where they had a redoubt or stronghold, is about 6.4 miles.

The “narrow pass” to which Brewster referred is about 3/4 of a mile wide. This is .75 miles or 1.26 kilometers.

The pass is a little over 3 miles long, depending on where you place the two ends.

“Narrow pass” strikes me as a good description of this geographical feature.

There are lots of features that constitute “narrow passes” throughout the world. On Long Island itself, there are several. That’s why Brewster qualified the term “narrow pass” by referring to Canoe Place and South Hampton so his reader would know the location of the pass.

In the Midwestern U.S. and western New York, there are innumerable features that could be described as a “narrow pass” in relation to water (Great Lakes or seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and land (mountains, ravines, etc.). It is the large number of features that align with the Book of Mormon description that make it impossible to say, with certainty, which real-world feature corresponds to a particular passage in the Book of Mormon.

But many work well with the New York Cumorah.
_____

from Mormon’s Codex 5 is the narrow pass or passage

Now, for comparison sake, let’s look at how the M2C citation cartel interprets the term “narrow.”

In Mormon’s Codex, Brother Sorenson equates narrow neck of land with narrow neck and small neck. That’s how he derived the well-known hourglass shape.

Important point: The M2C intellectuals have all agreed on definitions that interpret the text of the Book of Mormon to fit Mesoamerica.

That’s all fine. Seriously, I’m not saying they are wrong. The only thing the prophets have taught for sure is that Cumorah is in New York. Everything else is open to discussion and consideration.

BYU fantasy map conflating “narrow” terms the same way Sorenson’s map does

Still, their interpretation is difficult to fit in the real world.

Hence, the BYU/CES fantasy maps, which apply the M2C definitions to create a mythological fantasy map with the hourglass shape.

This conflation of different terms into one meaning leads Brother Sorenson to make statements such as this: “The adjective narrow is, of course, a subjective term. We cannot establish absolute limits on the basis of such a term alone. The account of Limhi’s exploring party establishes that a party of ‘diligent men’ could pass twice through the “narrow neck” without realize the fact. This clearly says something important about how ‘narrow’ the neck was and was not.” 

The footnote to this sentence reads in part “It would have been possible for Limhi’s explorers to pass through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec without detecting that it was a ‘neck’ at all.“

Sorenson claims that “In Alma 22:32 we learn that the width of the narrow neck was ‘a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite… Given such a range of possible travel distances, the Nephite ‘day and a half’s journey’ would not be implausible for the actual distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec of about 118 miles.”

While I’m not saying M2C is wrong, we have to recognize that when our best M2C intellectuals reach the conclusion that “narrow” could mean 118 miles across, we might have a problem with credibility.

To be sure, Brother Sorenson identifies a feature within the “narrow neck” as the “narrow pass or passage” (conflating those terms). It is an “elevation” of sandstone and gravel “that runs east-west, often forming a distinct ridge… this feature qualifies in every respect as the narrow pass of the Book of Mormon. When commander Mormon considered this ridge a ‘narrow passage,’ he certainly got it right in saying that if his Nephite army could hold it, the Lamanites from across the river could “not get possession of any of our [northward] lands” (Mormon 3:5).”

This is a reasonable interpretation that could be applied to dozens, or hundreds, of sites in the Western Hemisphere. What makes it fit in Mesoamerica is the separate interpretation of “narrow” meaning 118 miles in width.

IOW, to make the Book of Mormon text “fit” in Mesoamerica, we have Brother Sorenson and CES/BYU using a flexible interpretation of “narrow” that ranges from ridge suitable for foot traffic to an isthmus 118 miles wide.
_____

For decades, I believed what Brother Sorenson and the other members of the M2C citation cartel taught, so I understand how alluring M2C can be.

And, actually, I have no problem with people continuing to believe M2C. People choose to believe what they want and then rationalize it; we’ve just seen how easy it is to persuade oneself that a 118-mile-wide isthmus is “narrow.”

I offer my perspective not to persuade you of anything, but to give you additional information so you can make your own informed decisions.
_____

FWIW, here’s how I approach the text.

I ask myself, does it make more sense for the term “narrow” to apply to a geographical feature less than a mile wide, as Brewster used the term, or to be about 118 miles wide, as Sorenson and CES/BYU use the term?

Does it make more sense to interpret Book of Mormon terminology according to:

(i) the ordinary usage of the terms around the time (1779-1829) and place (New York area) where Joseph used them when he translated the text, or

(ii) the usage supplied by Mesoamerican scholars working in Utah about 180 years after Joseph translated the text?

_____

Uniqueness.

The phrase “narrow pass” occurs three times in the Book of Mormon, but not in any other scriptures.

Results of search for “narrow pass” on lds.org.

Old Testament (0)
New Testament (0)
Book of Mormon (3)
Doctrine and Covenants (0)
Pearl of Great Price (0)

If you look carefully at the usage of the phrase (see the verses below), you see that each usage is unique.

1. the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward (Alma 50:34) [Note: the qualifier “by the sea” implies there was at least one other “narrow pass” that people were familiar with. Here, the Nephite army headed the people of Morianton who were marching to the borders of the land Desolation.]

2. the narrow pass which led into the land northward (Alma 52:9) [Note: this passage makes no reference to the sea. If it referred to the same pass as the one in 50:34, it wouldn’t make sense; i.e., the 50:34 pass was between two seas. Fortifying the pass would not prevent invasion because the Lamanites could simply use boats to bypass the fortification. Plus, this chapter involved events two years after chapter 50 and doesn’t mention the land Desolation.]

3. the narrow pass which led into the land southward (Mormon 3:5) [Note: this was in a different context and hundreds of years after the Alma references]

I’m not saying it is “right” or “wrong” to interpret these passages are referring to the same feature or to different features. I’m suggesting that we need to ask ourselves these questions and not defer to someone else’s “consensus” interpretations.

Below are the verses in the Book of Mormon containing the term “narrow pass.”

Alma 50:34

The Hill Cumorah is the keystone of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon itself is the keystone of our religion.
_____

From BYU Studies

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. 

In General Conference, President Ezra Taft Benson taught, “A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles. 

There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony… 

Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon…

Our beloved brother, President Marion G. Romney, who celebrated his eighty-ninth birthday last month and who knows of himself of the power that resides in this book, testified of the blessings that can come into the lives of those who will read and study the Book of Mormon….

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng
______

The Hill Cumorah is the keystone of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

Cumorah is the intersection of the account of the Nephites, who called it Cumorah, and the account of the Jaredites, who called it Ramah.

As the only specific location unambiguously identified by the prophets, is the touchstone between the Book of Mormon and the real world.

Remove Cumorah, and there is no keystone for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. We’re left with nothing but abstract fantasy maps that portray the Book of Mormon as a myth with no connection to the real world.

In General Conference, President Marion G. Romney taught, “In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation….

Thus perished at the foot of Cumorah the remnant of the once mighty Jaredite nation, of whom the Lord had said, “There shall be none greater … upon all the face of the earth.” (Ether 1:43.)


As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, “How could it have happened?”

[The Nephite] civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’….

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng
_____

The New York Cumorah is the keystone to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but it does not determine where the other events in the Book of Mormon took place.

Lots of possible settings with Cumorah in New York

The prophets and apostles have been clear and specific about two things:

1. The Hill Cumorah is in New York.

2. We don’t know where the rest of the events took place.

There are many differences of opinion about the rest of Book of Mormon geography, and that’s fine. These ideas can encourage people to study the text for themselves.

Different theories and different evidence may be meaningful for different people. 

There is no reason to dispute about these. 

People can present their ideas, along with all the relevant information including the teachings of the prophets and the available extrinsic evidence, and then let others make informed decisions for themselves.

But there is no excuse for rejecting the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
_____

When we think about the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, we could keep in mind something else President Benson said in his talk about the Keystone:

In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 84, verses 54 to 58, we read:

“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

“Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

“And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

“And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

“That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.” [D&C 84:54–58]”

The Kno-Why was titled, “How does the ‘Mosiah-First’ Translation Sequence Strengthen Faith?” You can see it here:
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-the-mosiah-first-translation-sequence-strengthen-faith

Translation sequence – traditional explanation the “small plates of Nephi” don’t fit anywhere

After the 116 pages were lost, Joseph did not translate much if anything until Oliver Cowdery arrived in Harmony in April, 1829.

Joseph resumed the translation of the plates by starting with the Book of Mosiah.

The Kno-Why included the illustration to the left, which depicts the timeline of the translation process according to the traditional explanation.

Do you see the problem?

It shows the “Small Plates” after the “Title Page.” But Joseph said the Title Page was the very last leaf of the plates,* not the last leaf before the Small Plates.

This is the problem with the traditional explanation of the translation process and the plates. The “Small Plates” don’t fit anywhere.

This is apparent not only from the order of translation, but also from the Title Page, which describes only three components:

1. Abridged record of the Nephites.
2. Abridged record of the Jaredites.
3. Sealed by Moroni (his original writings).

The Title Page does not mention any original plates. 

This is one of several indications that there were two separate sets of plates.

Translation sequence – “two-sets-of-plates” explanation the “small plates of Nephi” were never in Moroni’s stone box

The illustration to the left is a revision to the translation chronology chart that explains the setting of the two translations.

You can see that the abridged plates, which I call the “Harmony plates,” were translated in Harmony. The original plates of Nephi, usually called the “small plates,” were translated in Fayette. That’s why I call them the “Fayette plates.”

Joseph also used the term “Original Book of Mormon,” which apparently consisted of the plates Moroni put in the stone box on the Hill Cumorah. This would have been the Book of Lehi through the Book of Moroni–the abridged records described by the Title Page.

After Martin Harris lost the Book of Lehi (the 116 pages), Joseph continued the translation from where he left off; i.e., the Book of Mosiah. Then, when Joseph and Oliver neared the end of the plates, they considered re-translating the Book of Lehi. In D&C 10, the Lord told them not to do this. Instead, they had to translate the engravings on the “plates of Nephi.”

But they didn’t have the “plates of Nephi” yet. 

Before leaving Harmony, Joseph gave the original plates to a divine messenger. On the road to Fayette, he, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer met this messenger. David offered to give him a ride but he declined, saying he was going to “Cumorah.”

David lived in the area but had never heard of “Cumorah.” He asked Joseph what was going on. Joseph said the man was one of the Three Nephites.**

Apparently the messenger was taking the Harmony plates back to the repository of Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah. There, he picked up the plates of Nephi and brought them to Fayette. He showed them (and/or the original plates) to Mary Whitmer, David’s mother, and then gave the plates of Nephi (the “small plates”) to Joseph Smith.

That’s why Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi in Fayette.

I put more explanation and a complete diagram here:

http://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

I have a lot more detail and explanation in my book, Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates?

Available everywhere, including Amazon.

The “two-sets-of-plates” answers lots of questions about Church history that the traditional explanation simply leaves as mysteries, inconsistencies–and, for some, reasons to disbelieve what Joseph, Oliver, David, and others claimed.
_____

* Joseph’s 1839 history explains:

“I wish also to mention here, that the Title Page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated…. said Title Page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the Title Page of the English Version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the Title Page of the Original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.“

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/40

**David Whitmer related this account multiple times. Here’s one example, published in the Juvenile Instructor, a magazine published in Utah by George Q. Cannon.

A Visit to David Whitmer.

By. E. Stevenson [Note: ancestor of Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Twelve]

While on the return journey from Palmyra, David noticed a somewhat aged-looking man who approached them on the road. He had a very pleasant face, about which, however, there seemed something peculiar, and he carried a knapsack on his back fastened with straps which crossed his breast. David asked him to take a ride, but he declined, saying: “I am going over to Cumorah,” and then disappeared very suddenly, though there was no chance for him to secrete himself in the open country through which the party was then passing. All felt very strange concerning this personage and the Prophet was besought to inquire of the Lord concerning him. Shortly afterwards, David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and Mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen one only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed portions of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstructv224geor/page/54

I agree, it’s difficult to believe. But I’m not kidding about this. Nor am I trying to persuade. It’s just a fact.

The real question should be, where is M2C not being taught?

Below I’ll give a specific recent example of the M2C rationale, but the teaching that Joseph adopted a false tradition about Cumorah is implicit in every depiction of M2C.

It’s very simple.

BYU’s M2C fantasy map

If they didn’t reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, the scholars and their followers would agree that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and depict it that way.

Instead, in their books, articles, blogs, and images, they depict Cumorah in Mesoamerica–or in the BYU/CES fantasy world designed to resemble Mesoamerica.

Participants in the M2C citation cartel explain M2C by claiming that Joseph Smith never referred to the hill as Cumorah until “late,” meaning several years after his associates created the “false narrative” that the hill in New York is the same as the hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6.

They claim that when Joseph did refer to Cumorah, such as in D&C 128:20, he was spreading a false tradition started by others.
_____

Here’s the recent example. It’s from a blog post. I don’t identify individuals on this blog because names are irrelevant and I don’t want people coming to this blog by searching for names.

None of this is a personal issue; we’re dealing with facts and reason in the context of persuasion vs. education. It doesn’t matter who wrote it except that he’s a well-known author and active member of the M2C citation cartel.

I’m going to take the time to point out the difference between persuasion and education because I think readers can use this example to analyze everything they read. 

There’s a lot of detail in here, but sophistry is complex and unsuspecting readers don’t recognize the difference between persuasion and education. This is why we have so much fake news and sharp divisions among people, everywhere in the world.

I think that if people were educated about facts vs. opinions and how to recognize logical fallacies, most people would tend to agree on issues (assuming they could overcome their bias confirmation). Most people don’t want to take the time or make the effort; it’s far easier and more comfortable to continue confirming one’s biases.

Nevertheless, I think some Church members, at least, want to make informed decisions.

I re-emphasize that I don’t care what anyone believes. I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I just want everyone interested to make informed decisions, and that means people need to have all the facts and learn to distinguish between persuasion and education.

This M2C author was responding to a post about Letter VII, which he rejects. Original in blue, my comments in red.

I hope this has been a helpful exercise to see the difference between persuasion and education. You can do the same exercise whenever you read material published by the M2C citation cartel.
_____

Here are more examples of M2C in print. They all teach that Cumorah cannot be in New York.

M2C map of Mesoamerica

M2C book

M2C book

M2C book

M2C painting

M2C book

Joseph Curtis reminiscences and diary, October 1839-March 1881. This passage was recorded no later than October 1839.

In the spring of 1835 Joseph smith in Company with his father & mother & some others came to Michigan & paid us a visit-in a meeting stated the reason he preached the doctrin he did I will state a few things according to my memory-as a revival of some of the secs was going on some of this fathers family joined in with the revival himself being quite young he feeling an anxiety to be religious his mind some what troubled this scripture came to his mind which sayes if a man lack wisdom let him ask of god who giveth liberaly and upbraideth not believing it he went with a determinatio[n] to obtain to enquire of the lord himself after some struggle the Lord manifested to him that the different sects were rong also that the Lord had a great work for him to do-it worried his mind-he told his father-his father told him to do as the Lord manifested – had other manifestations saw an angel with a view of the hill cumorah & the plates of gold had certain instructions got the plates & by the assistance of the urim & Thumin translated them by the gift & power of God also stated he had done nothing except he more than he was commanded to do & for this his name was cast out as evil for this he was persecuted[.]



[Note: some think the visit was October 1834. Joseph could have made multiple visits to Michigan.]

You can see this reference in the Church History library. Search for Joseph Curtis reminiscences and go to page 12/208.

The following link may or may not work:

https://catalog.lds.org/assets/24463061-0287-4460-8a45-62d078b75991/0/11

I don’t think I’ve persuaded anyone of anything anyway, so it’s really a moot point.

Plus, I don’t think people even can be persuaded, except by depriving them of important information.

People only change their minds of their own volition. This graphic is a good example. It depicts upside down plates.

But one plate is right side up, and when you see it, all the others flip right side up.

I can’t persuade you that the plates are right side up. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Nothing I can say will enable you to see the plates being right side up. You have to discover the outlier (the fact) and experience the change yourself.

This is a nice metaphor for education. Sometimes one fact can entirely change our understanding of reality. That’s why education about facts is so essential.

In my view, there’s a distinction between persuasion and education. The difference is not a fine line or a grey area. It’s a bright line.

I’m opposed to persuasion. I’m in favor of education. It’s that simple.

I want people to be able to make informed decisions, and that means they need good information.

As President Nelson said, “good inspiration is based upon good information.“

Good information is not the product of censorship. It’s not the outcome of sophistry and logical fallacies.

If I was trying to persuade people, I would use the tactics employed by Book of Mormon Central Censor, FairlyMormon, and the rest of the M2C citation cartel. I would censor sources and interpretations that contradict my views. I would use logical fallacies. I would appeal to the authority of my like-minded academic peers. I would use peer-approval instead of peer-review when I publish articles. I would use my position as an employee to imprint the M2C interpretation of the text, to the exclusion of alternative views. Basically, I would use Orwell’s 1984 as my handbook.

Maybe, like some M2C intellectuals lately, I would claim I’d been hired by the prophets so my personal, academic opinions cannot be analyzed, criticized, or disagreed with. 

But I don’t do that. Unlike the M2C citation cartel, I don’t have “credentials” or any position of authority to enforce my views.

Instead, I do research to discover facts, which I then share on this blog and elsewhere. I discuss various interpretations of the facts. Sometimes the facts change the views of those who learn about them, but that’s not me persuading anyone. That’s people learning new facts and making informed decisions for themselves.

A big problem we have in the Church is this: as long as the M2C citation cartel and revisionist historians persist in seeking to persuade by censoring information, using logical fallacies, and appealing to their credentials, their followers cannot make informed decisions.

Education, not persuasion, leads me to discuss factual errors and logical fallacies that I see. To do that, I provide my red-line comments to academic material so everyone can see that I’m not “cherry picking” or hiding anything. I also welcome, even solicit, corrections whenever I mistake or overlook a relevant fact.

None of this is intended to persuade. It’s all intended to educate, so people can make informed decisions on their own.
_____

A good example of this is a recent post about Martin Harris, which you can see here:

http://www.lettervii.com/2019/02/martin-harris-no-on-else-saw-plates.html

In that post, I set out a fact and then explain two alternative explanations. Readers are encouraged to consider the facts and reach their own conclusions. It’s pure education, not persuasion.
_____

One reason I got involved with Church history and Book of Mormon historicity is because several people, including former missionary companions, family members, and business associates, challenged my beliefs in the Book of Mormon, the divinity of the Restoration, etc.

They made some good points, based on (i) facts that I didn’t know and (ii) facts I had known didn’t fit with the prevailing narrative, but that I had “put on the shelf.”

I’ve since resolved what initially appeared to be troublesome facts, but those issues remain troublesome for many people. I think the problem is two-fold.

1. Many aspects of the prevailing narratives (M2C, Church history, Gospel Topics essays) are not credible because they contradict, or don’t explain, important facts.

2. Church employees at BYU, CES and COB don’t teach these important facts, so when people first learn the facts from critics, the critics have more credibility.

I’ll be discussing all of this in upcoming posts and books, but I mention it here because it’s related to my experience that education, not persuasion, is the way to go.