Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

Note on the Jaredites

We’re currently in Vancouver, British Columbia. We visited the anthropology museum here and took this photo of the famous Bill Reid sculpture of the origin of the First Nations here.

The legend has the first people coming out of a clam shell, opened by Raven.

It’s a nice metaphor for the Jaredites exiting their barges.

The origin of Native Americans is a typical scientific issue that you can never get to the bottom of.

Generally, everyone agrees that the Native Americans came from Asia, but there are advocates of many specific theories based on native legends, DNA and archaeology, and there are new discoveries all the time.

The overall concept is a migration, by land or sea, from Asia to the Americas.

The Book of Ether describes exactly such a migration.

The term “Jaredites” is often used to refer to all of the immigrants who accompanied Jared. It’s a useful generalization in some ways, but I think it has led to confusion and error in understanding the text.

The Book of Ether is the record of Ether’s ancestral line. It’s not the history of all of the people who migrated with Jared, his brother, and their friends.

“Jaredites” are descendants of Jared, not descendants of his brother or the friends who came with them.

Moroni explained he was abridging the record of the people “in this north country,” the area where he lived in western New York.

It was not the record of all the descendants who came with Jared.

In fact, after the initial census, we never hear again about Jared’s brother. And the census itself didn’t mention their friends and their descendants.

Consequently, I think the descendants of Jared’s brother and all their friends dispersed throughout the continent, just as the DNA and archaeology indicates. The Book of Ether doesn’t relate their history at all.

There remains the problem of dating. The Book of Ether has the migration taking place much more recently than traditional dating techniques (DNA and archaeology) suggest. That’s a topic for another post.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

BOMCC Still Fooling Donors (and the Church)

Book of Mormon Central Censor (BOMCC) has raised millions of dollars from faithful members of the Church by claiming they are “neutral” on the question of Book of Mormon geography. Readers of this blog know that I appreciate many of the resources provided by BOMCC, but I object to the ongoing censorship at BOMCC, especially in light of their ongoing pretense of neutrality. More and more people are seeing through their neutrality claims, but because there are a lot of new readers here, I’ll review it all again.

In light of the new Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography, BOMCC is desperate to maintain the facade of neutrality. They recently posted another bizarre article to that effect, which we’ll discuss below.

At the outset, I emphasize that I genuinely like everyone at BOMCC, and I respect their work. I think they are trying to do the right thing because they firmly believe in M2C and they firmly believe the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.

IOW, they are trying to thread a needle: i.e., they are convinced of M2C, but they know they’re supposed to be “neutral” because Church leaders and donors expect that. But, in my view, they are misleading both Church leaders and donors.

M2C = the prophets are
wrong about Cumorah

Everyone should know that their pretended “neutrality” is a ruse to raise money. Anyone who donates to BOMCC is not supporting neutrality; donors are directly supporting M2C.

Which, of course, is fine–so long as donors know what they’re doing.

A key selling point for donors is that they can deduct their donations as charitable contributions because BOMCC is a 501(c)(3) organization. But actually, it’s their corporate owner that is a 501(c)(3).

And their corporate owner, Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum (BMAF), spells out the truth in its mission statement.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum (BMAF) is a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization dedicated as an open forum for presentation, dissemination, and discussion of research and evidences regarding Book of Mormon archaeology, anthropology, geography and culture within a Mesoamerican context.  Our goals are (1) to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex… 

You can read it yourself here: http://bmaf.org/about/mission_statement

If you go to that web page, notice the M2C logo with a Mayan pyramid.

BMAF is the M2C organization you are actually contributing to if you contribute to BOMCC. And there is absolutely nothing “neutral” about BMAF.
_____

BOMCC tells people it’s a separate organization from BMAF, but if that was true, you couldn’t deduct your donations. Even if BOMCC eventually gets its own 501(c)(3) designation, it doesn’t matter.

The basic premise for everything BOMCC publishes on the topic is M2C, which relies entirely on the claim that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Even the BOMCC logo features a Mayan glyph to focus on M2C (along with Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian). 

If you go through the BOMCC archive and their “Kno-Why” articles, they uniformly promote M2C and either denigrate or censor every alternative theory of Book of Mormon geography–including the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Other than their claim of neutrality, there is nothing at all on their web page, at their conferences, or even in the writings of their affiliates, that is in the least neutral about Book of Mormon geography. It is all M2C, all the time.
_____

Now, let’s look at the BOMCC blog post that claims neutrality:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/church-releases-statement-on-book-of-mormon-geography

Right on this page, they feature their M2C logo and several of their greatest hits of M2C dogma.

They feature the infamous BYU fantasy map of the Book of Mormon that teaches students to disbelieve the prophets and that the Book of Mormon is fiction.

They try to persuade people to disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver taught in Letter VII.

Actually, they try to persuade people that all the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.

They also feature a blog post about “new Maya discoveries” that, they claim, fit their M2C theory.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/4-ways-the-new-maya-discoveries-may-relate-to-the-book-of-mormon

For those interested, I deconstructed that approach here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/04/new-discoveries-about-mayans-and-bias.html

Also, for those interested, I occasionally address these “no-wise” in a separate blog, here: http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/
_____

You might be wondering, how do they get away with fooling donors about their position on Book of Mormon geography?

Here are some possible reasons:

1. Members of the Church tend to trust employees of BYU, CES, and COB (the Church Office Building, including the Church History Department). If you look at the directory of people involved with BOMCC, many if not most are such employees.

2. People are persuaded by appearances. BOMCC has a nice presentation (which we expect, since they spend millions of dollars annually to maintain their image). Their videos have good production values. Their articles appear scholarly (even though in reality, they merely recycle citations from the M2C citation cartel).

3. Most people don’t read things carefully. They assume that when BOMCC claims to be neutral, they must actually be neutral. So let’s look at what they say in their post on neutrality.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

Our policy is to utilize the most reliable academic scholarship on the Book of Mormon and follow the evidence wherever it might lead. 

By “most reliable academic scholarship” they mean “those who accept and promote M2C.” They demonstrate this in every article and video they produce; all the references they cite and quote are to members of the M2C citation cartel.

Outside the M2C bubble, no legitimate “academic scholarship” accepts M2C. No non-M2C Mesoamerican experts find any relevance of the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerican studies. No “evidence” leads to M2C, except in the minds of M2C proponents who seek to confirm their M2C bias.

M2C is based entirely on two foundations:

1. The prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah; and

2. You can reinterpret the text to find illusory “correspondences” between the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica; e.g., a “horse” is a “tapir,” a “tower” is a massive stone pyramid, etc.

Our process in selecting and highlighting Book of Mormon evidence is based on the following principles:

As you read this list, notice the complete absence of the teachings of the prophets, especially the teachings about the New York Cumorah which BOMCC completely censors.

  • “In our hierarchy of evidence, the text itself is primary because it is closest to the divine.”
When you read their material carefully, you see that it is not the text that is primary but their M2C-driven interpretation of the text. For example, they conflate the terms “small neck,” “narrow neck,” and “narrow neck of land” to all refer to the same geographic feature, an interpretation not required or even implied by the text (because normal interpretive rules recognize different terms mean different things). 
  • “If profound and compelling location-specific insights shed light on the text, we highlight these regardless of their geographic provenience.”
Of course, this is all a subjective determination, and because the editorial policy of BOMCC is designed to promote M2C, only M2C “evidence” is deemed “profound and compelling.” This is evident to everyone who reads their material.
  • “We favor authors with credentials in their areas of interest.”
This is one of their rationales for repudiating the prophets, none of whom had degrees in Mesoamerican studies. More importantly, they reject the vast majority of authors who have actual credentials in Mesoamerican studies because those authors entirely reject M2C. The most important “credential” BOMCC favors is the credential of believing M2C. I’m not aware of any authors on BOMCC who do not accept M2C, actually (except for some of my own work that they once had in their archive but removed).  
  • “We favor formally published works from reputable presses.”
As applied by BOMCC, this policy defines “reputable presses” as publishers who publish M2C material from the M2C citation cartel.

As explained in BMC’s statement on geographical neutrality, “We welcome good work from any geographic persuasion that is responsive to these principles.”

This is circular reasoning. By definition, the only work that “is responsive to these principles” is work that supports M2C. The entire statement of “neutrality” is deceptive sophistry. 

_____

My

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Typical M2C response to CES Letter

Because the new Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography has attracted so much attention to the issue of geography and historicity, it’s important for members of the Church to understand why critics (such as the CES Letter) have focused on this issue.

The first answer is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. When critics (or BYU/CES teachers) persuade the youth and Church members that the Book of Mormon is fiction, nothing else matters.

The second answer is that the M2C intellectuals, who are the most prominent “defenders” of the Church, have decided the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah. Consequently, nearly every defense of the Book of Mormon includes the argument that the prophets are wrong!

No wonder so many Church members are confused about what to believe. 

The Gospel Topics essay does nothing to solve this problem because it completely avoids the key issue regarding Book of Mormon geography; i.e., the contradiction between what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah, and what Church employees have managed to portray and teach about M2C.

The material published by the M2C citation cartel is far more harmful than the material published by the critics because the M2C intellectuals are working from the inside of the Church. All the critics have done is brought attention to the work of the M2C intellectuals.

Here’s an example of a response to the CES Letter from one of the well-known M2C advocates, Michael Ash.

http://shakenfaithsyndrome.com/bamboozle/bamboozled.pdf

Original in blue, my comments in red.

7) LDS apologists [defenders of the faith] typically claim that the real Hill Cumorah was somewhere in Mesoamerica. This contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church— there’s a Hill Cumorah Pageant in Palmyra every year for crying out loud! 

Answer: Joseph wasn’t the first to call the hill which entombed the plates “Cumorah” and even if he was, there is no evidence that a revelation was given designating the hill as Cumorah. 

Readers here know that Lucy Mack Smith recorded an event during which Joseph referred to the hill near his home as Cumorah even before he got the plates. In 1830, during the mission to the Lamanites in New York, Ohio, and Missouri, Oliver Cowdery explained that Moroni himself called the hill Cumorah anciently. Of course, Letter VII specifically declares it is a fact that the hill Cumorah in western New York is the very hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. The M2C intellectuals never tell their readers about this. When confronted with this historical evidence, they say it’s wrong, that people misremembered, that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church, etc.

The M2C intellectuals like to say “there is no evidence that a revelation was given.” And yet, Joseph knew the name of the hill even before he got the plates. He could have learned this only from Moroni. Are we to infer that what Moroni taught Joseph was not a “revelation” for some reason? On multiple occasions, Joseph and Oliver (and others) actually visited the repository of Nephite plates inside the New York hill. The M2C intellectuals claim this was merely a vision, or that their physical experience was still not a “revelation.”

The critics can easily point to the discrepancy between what these M2C intellectuals want people to believe and the actual historical evidence.

Some early Mormon (probably one of the Pratt brothers) seems to have been the first to dub the Palmyra hill “Cumorah” for the likely reason that he thought it made sense. 

This contradicts the actual evidence mentioned above. Furthermore, where would the Pratt brothers have learned this except from Joseph and Oliver? In fact, in his Autobiography, Parley specifically says he learned this from Oliver. 

There is no denying that early Latter-day Saints typically understood their local vicinity as having been the home to Book of Mormon events. Heck, there were all kinds of bones scattered in and under the earth— surely this is where the Book of Mormon took place.

The Gospel Topics Essay did one important thing: it showed everyone that Joseph did, in fact, identify the plains in the Midwest as the “plains of the Nephites.” Naturally, early Latter-day Saints accepted Joseph’s teachings on this. They all read Letter VII because Joseph made sure it was widely publicized. Heber C. Kimball visited the Hill Cumorah in New York and reported that he saw embankments around it. 

 Using the best logic, intuition, and evidence of the day, it did make sense. 

See how the M2C intellectuals seek to bring prophets down to their level? Or, more accurately, below their level, because the prophets don’t have the PhDs that the M2C intellectuals have. Of course, Joseph learned the name Cumorah from the angel Moroni. He and Oliver actually visited the repository of Nephite records. Their experience is, or should be, infinitely more valuable than the speculations of M2C intellectuals. But as we’ll see next, that’s not the case. 

This is once again, however, a human approach—a scientific approach, if you will. Scientists and laypersons alike see patterns and formulate hypotheses based on initial indicators and evidence. In rigorous modern academic research, scientists and scholars dig deep to verify or falsify a theory. In math and physics (“hard sciences”) this is typically easier to do than in the humanities (“soft sciences”). 2+2=6; it’s easy to check the accuracy of this conclusion. 

This is mere word salad designed to lull readers into thinking this is a rigorous analysis.

The claim that the first humans arrived in the New World 13,000 years ago is not so easily proven and may be open to debate. The “13,000 years ago” would be the current earliest date for which we can provide evidence. If no bones are ever found to dispute this claim, that doesn’t mean that our timeline is settled— bones aren’t always found. What it means is that the latest theory on the first American populations is based on the best evidence currently available. So, if I haven’t lost you on this one yet—back to Cumorah in New York. 

Word salad over. Now he gets back to undermining the credibility of the prophets.

Without 31 revelation on the matter, the early brethren—including Joseph Smith—were free to use their own logic, reasoning, and acceptance or rejection of evidence to formulate their own theories and opinions. Based on the best evidence of the day, the bones on the Midwestern plains seemed to match pretty well with stories from the Book of Mormon. They knew that Mormon had buried plates in the hill Cumorah and that Joseph Smith dug the golden plates out of a nearby hill, so it just made sense that this hill was the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. 

Do you see how, by ignoring (really, by censoring) the actual historical evidence, the M2C intellectuals have been able to push their M2C dogma as an equivalent (yet superior because based on more education) theory?

Interestingly enough, it should be noted that as new evidence emerged on the early inhabitants of Mesoamerica, Joseph Smith apparently rethought his views about Book of Mormon geography and might have favored the Central American region for Book of Mormon events. 

This sentence refers to the anonymous editorials in the 1842 Times and Seasons. This is the same premise that shows up in the Gospel Topics Essay; i.e., the assertion that an 1841 travel book caused Joseph Smith to reject what Moroni had taught him–and his own experience in the Hill Cumorah with Oliver Cowdery and others.

Even if you accept the flimsy premise that Joseph actually edited or approved of these anonymous editorials, they said nothing about the New York Cumorah!

The M2C intellectuals have successfully conflated the two separate issues (Cumorah vs the rest of the geography), but the prophets never have.

Unfortunately, the Gospel Topics Essay, as originally published, does conflate the two separate issues. But that can be fixed easily enough.

It is the conflation of these two issues that gives the critics such an easy task.

Just like those who study science and scholarship, Joseph Smith changed his views based on better evidence (not revelation, better evidence). 

To a hammer, everything is a nail, and to an intellectual, every question can be answered only by intellectuals. But as we just saw, nothing in these anonymous articles evince any change in Joseph’s “views” about the New York Cumorah. In fact, Letter VII was published both before and after these anonymous editorials were published.

From the view of current scholarship, a Hill Cumorah in Palmyra New York isn’t feasible. 

This sentence ranks among the most classic of all M2C citation cartel literature. It’s a favorite of the critics, including the CES Letter, because here we have the M2C intellectuals declaring the prophets are wrong. What more do the critics needs to say, really?

Reading the Book of Mormon with a more discerning eye reveals that Mormon buried all of the plates except the golden plates in the Hill Cumorah. So wherever the plates were buried, the one place we know they weren’t buried was in the Hill Cumorah.

A careful reading of the Book of Mormon says nothing of the sort. Orson Pratt explained that there were two departments in the hill, just as Joseph and Oliver explained in their historical letters. Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and others corroborated this explanation. Only the M2C intellectuals claim all these Church leaders were wrong.

 In other words, Moroni might have buried the plates in a hill he called “Harvey’s Hill,” or any other name save Cumorah (unless, of course, he decided to dub this new New York hill “Cumorah” in the same way we find the city of “Paris” in Idaho). 

Need I write more?
_____

With answers such as these, which are similar to those given by other members of the M2C citation cartel, it’s no wonder that so many people find the CES Letter more persuasive than the explanations and narrative provided by the defenders of the Church.

The Gospel Topics Essay, as originally published, helps the critics more than the defenders of the Church, precisely for the reasons the answers given by the M2C intellectuals do.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

The Times and Seasons articles

The Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography (published here) cites two articles from the 1842 Church newspaper called the Times and Seasons that was published in Nauvoo, IL.

“Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Azteca Nation,” Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, 818–20; see also “American Antiquities,” Times and Seasons, July 15, 1842, 858–60.

Because the essay cites these two anonymous articles as evidence that “The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America,” it’s important for people to understand these articles in context.

There is no historical record of Joseph ever saying or implying anything like what that quoted sentence claims.

It is pure mindreading. 

That sentence is merely wishful thinking on the part of M2C* proponents and has no place in a Gospel Topics essay.

The claim arises from a long-held assumption that Joseph Smith approved of everything published in the Times and Seasons between March and October 1842, all because the boilerplate at the end of each issue said the paper was edited, printed and published by Joseph Smith.

Yet no one believes Joseph Smith literally printed the paper. The print shop employed people who set type and operated the printing press. It’s unthinkable that Joseph would have spent his time literally running the press to print the paper.

It’s equally unthinkable that Joseph would have spent his time literally editing the paper.

Attributing these anonymous articles to Joseph Smith, and then using them to infer what he secretly thought about Book of Mormon geography, is pure advocacy of a point of view, not factual history. 
_____

Besides, none of these anonymous Times and Seasons articles mention the Hill Cumorah; speculations about ruins in Central America has no bearing whatsoever on the consistent, persistent teaching that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. In fact, the Times and Seasons itself published Letter VII, which teaches it is a fact that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the same hill where Joseph found the plates. The Times and Seasons also published what became D&C 128:20, which refers specifically to Cumorah.

Consequently, even if people want to engage in mindreading about what Joseph Smith thought about ruins in Central America, there is no need to mind read about the New York Cumorah. 

Let’s look at the facts.
_____

Here are the articles if you want to read them. There are two good sources for the Times and Seasons. You can find both articles in both sources, but here I show the first one in the Joseph Smith Papers (facsimile plus text) and the second one at Centerplace.org (text only, but easier to search).

“Traits of the Mosaic History”
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-15-june-1842/4

“American Antiquities”
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n18.htm
_____

The Times and Seasons was the first Church history topic that I researched in depth because these anonymous articles, along with other anonymous articles, were the intellectual ancestors of M2C.

I ended up writing three long, detailed books on the topic: The Lost City of Zarahemla, Brought to Light, and The Editors: Joseph, William and Don Carlos Smith.

My conclusions, based on all the facts:

1. Joseph Smith was the nominal editor only, with little to no actual editing activity apart from articles he personally signed.

2. William Smith, Joseph’s brother and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was the actual editor (just like their brother Don Carlos had been the editor of the Times and Seasons before his death in 1841).

3. During 1842, William was also editing another Nauvoo newspaper, The Wasp, using the same print shop. Often the two papers shared content. W.W. Phelps was also in Nauvoo during this period and probably helped edit content for both papers.

4. William Smith was friends with Benjamin Winchester, whose work was published frequently in the Times and Seasons (beginning with the very first issue). Most of Winchester’s articles were published anonymously.

5. In 1841, Winchester published a Church-related newspaper in Philadelphia called the Gospel Reflector. Joseph Smith stayed with Winchester during his trip to Washington, D.C. and expressly gave Winchester permission to republish Oliver Cowdery’s eight historical letters in the Gospel Reflector.

6. In the Gospel Reflector, Winchester published articles linking the Book of Mormon to ancient ruins in America, including Central America. He quoted from Josiah Priest’s book American Antiquities, the book quoted in the articles cited in the Gospel Topics essay, and is the only Church member known to have owned a copy of this book in 1842 when the articles appeared in the Times and Seasons.

7. Winchester moved to Nauvoo in late 1841 and worked for the Times and Seasons. He returned to Philadelphia in 1842 and sent articles to William Smith in Nauvoo for publication.

8. William published Winchester’s work anonymously, including the anonymous articles about evidence for the Book of Mormon as well as such articles as Try the Spirits.

9. In 1842, Joseph was very busy; Wilford Woodruff noted that Joseph barely had time to sign his name to official documents. During the summer he was in hiding from Missouri authorities who sought to extradite him. Joseph usually read the paper for the first time after it was published. In September Joseph sent two letters to the actual editor for publication. (D&C 127 and 128).

10. When Joseph read an article in the Times and Seasons that claimed Zarahemla was in Guatemala, he resigned as nominal editor and fired William Smith from both the Times and Seasons and the Wasp.

11. In 1844, when William was editor of The Prophet (a Church newspaper in New York), he again solicited articles from Benjamin Winchester.

There’s more detail that I can summarize in a blog post; that’s why I ended up writing the three books. But the evidence is there for anyone to read.
_____

To date, the only pushback I’ve received on all of this is from M2C proponents who claim to have conducted a “stylometry” analysis of the anonymous articles that shows Joseph is a likely author. I don’t give the study any credence because the authors have refused to disclose their assumptions, methodology and database. It’s a “black-box” methodology, and their secrecy suggests they reached their conclusions first and tweaked the results to confirm their biases. As long as their data remains a secret, the only reason to accept their results is bias confirmation.

By contrast, the actual historical facts are public. Anyone can examine them and reach their own conclusions.
_____

The first thing to notice: the articles are anonymous. They were signed not by Joseph Smith, but by “Ed.” For decades, historians have assumed that “Ed.” meant Joseph Smith because the boilerplate at the end of each issue of the newspaper said the paper was edited, printed, and published by Joseph Smith, but as I mentioned above, that boilerplate is meaningless–unless you also want to claim that Joseph himself physically printed the paper.

Some people are surprised to learn that there are no historical accounts of Joseph editing the paper. His journal never mentions such activities. None of his contemporaries remarked on Joseph spending time editing the paper. His own history that was published in the Times and Seasons contains a significant error that later historians attribute to Joseph’s scribes and clerks, and there are other specific examples in the paper that show Joseph had no direct involvement with the editing process.

The exceptions are specific articles that Joseph signed separately, such as the Wentworth letter and the letters that became D&C 127 and 128.
_____

As I said, there’s a lot of detailed historical information to consider. This post is merely a summary. But what I’ve shown here is more than enough to demonstrate that the Gospel Topics essay relies on mindreading, not facts, to characterize Joseph Smith as uncertain and speculative about Book of Mormon geography.

I think this approach does an injustice to the Prophet and is designed purely and solely to accommodate M2C.
_____

*M2C is the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that teaches Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah because the “real” Cumorah is in southern Mexico.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Gospel Topics Essay problems

I keep hearing complaints about the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography. Although I think the essay is a step in the right direction because it takes the perceived thumb of the Church off the M2C scale, I’m not oblivious to the problems it raises.

I’ve proposed changes that I think will improve the essay. You can see a table of these changes here:

https://presidentnelsonspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/02/revisions-to-gospel-topics-essay-on.html

That is a “nice” link that you can share without all the baggage of the M2C controversy in this blog.
_____

Here are a couple of serious problems with the essay.

1. Supports critics. As written, the essay supports the arguments of the critics, beginning with Mormonism Unvailed, the 1834 anti-Mormon book that claimed the Book of Mormon was fiction, and continuing to the present with the CES Letter.

Joseph and Oliver responded to Mormonism Unvailed by writing the eight essays on Church history and priesthood, including Letter VII. Joseph and Oliver declared that facts would overcome innuendo and speculation; they cited the fact of the hill Cumorah being in western New York among other facts. Their approach in these essays was to establish the restoration of the Priesthood and the setting of Cumorah as real world facts to counter the assertions that everything they testified of was fiction, including the Book of Mormon.

The Gospel Topics essay takes a different approach. It ignores the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and conveys the message that the Church has no idea where anything took place. From the perspective of the critics, that’s tantamount to conceding the Book of Mormon is fiction.

2. Represents one POV. Although framed as neutral, the essay represents the long-established views of the M2C intellectuals. I’ve pointed out that certain employees in the Church Office Building, CES, and BYU like to make decisions for the Brethren by giving them limited alternatives to choose from. This essay epitomizes that problem.

I don’t think anyone believes the Brethren would have issued this Gospel Topics Essay in its current version had they been informed of all the facts. The misleading paraphrase of President Ivins’ General Conference talk alone is inexcusable, but combined with the omission of his preceding talk about the Hill Cumorah, the presentation in the essay is simply deceptive. The treatment of the anonymous Times and Seasons articles is equally deceptive because it converts the inferences of a few M2C scholars into a claim about what Joseph Smith was actually thinking.

The problem of employees making decisions by limiting the options presented to their bosses is common in all large organizations, but it is even worse in the context of the Church.

Unless corrected, this essay conveys inferences and out-of-context statements that will mislead members of the Church and friends/investigators everywhere. It feeds the M2C narrative that Joseph Smith was ignorant and confused, that he learned about the Book of Mormon from popular travel books, and that he misled the Church about the New York Cumorah and the identity of the Lamanites. Building on that foundation, the M2C intellectuals teach their students that all the prophets and apostles who have reaffirmed the New York Cumorah have also misled the Church.

The M2C intellectuals have taught this narrative for decades because it puts them in a position superior to Joseph, Oliver, and the other prophets and apostles. It goes like this: if the Cumorah question is purely an academic issue, the M2C intellectuals have more education and more “facts” than the prophets, so they are correct and the prophets are wrong.

This means Joseph Smith was wrong when he told his mother the name of the hill before he even got the plates; that David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery were wrong in their accounts; and that all the prophets and apostles who have formally taught the New York Cumorah were wrong.

Does anyone think the Brethren intended to convey this message to the world?

Yet, because of the careful framing of this essay, and the censorship of the teachings of the prophets, that is exactly what message is currently being taught by this essay.
_____

All this said, I still think the essay is an important step toward correcting the M2C errors that have crept in. Prohibiting the advocacy of M2C in “Church settings” is significant, especially if the policy is enforced to eliminate M2C artwork.

Let’s all be patient and see how the entire situation unfolds.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Disrupting the academic cycle

I’m hearing from a lot of people about the new Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography. Thousands of members of the Church wish that Church leaders would explicitly reaffirm the specific teachings of their predecessors; i.e., that the hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is in western New York. These teachings are set forth in the BYU packet on the Hill Cumorah, available here:

https://byupackets.blogspot.com/p/byu-packet.html

Many are disappointed that the new Gospel Topics Essay doesn’t even cite, much less reaffirm, these consistent and persistent teachings about the New York Cumorah.

I say, don’t give up. Eventually the right thing will happen. This is a process.

Remember, a few years ago BYU professors were told to stop teaching M2C overtly; i.e., they were told to stop teaching that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. That’s what led to the development of the computer-generated fantasy map that, as we all know, was a ruse. They simply applied the M2C interpretation of the text to create a fantasy world that looked just like what they wished Mesoamerica looked like. I discussed that before here.

The new essay asks members and leaders not to discuss Book of Mormon geography in “Church settings.”

Purging “Church settings” of M2C is an enormous development. It’s a critical first step because it disrupts the academic cycle.

I’ve described the academic cycle as the method the M2C intellectuals have used to perpetuate their M2C dogma.

They have taught M2C throughout the Church, starting in Primary and proceeding through CES (Seminary and Institute), BYU, and Church media, visitors centers, manuals, etc.

The new Gospel Topics essay disrupts the academic cycle.

No longer can the M2C advocates push their theories through “Church settings,” a term that presumably includes Church media, CES, BYU, etc., as well as Primary, Sunday School, etc.
_____

We have to be patient. I suspect the new policy will not be implemented quickly. A good measure of the new policy is what happens at the North Visitors Center on Temple Square.

As long as the Visitors Center continues to teach M2C, we can see that the new policy is not completely in effect.

We can expect quite a few additional changes.

For example, the two paintings below specifically teach M2C, yet we see them throughout “Church settings.” According to the essay, they should be discontinued because they take a specific position on Book of Mormon geography. We’ll see how quickly they are removed.

Lots more to discuss, but I hope everyone sees the new essay as a very positive step.

Painting of Christ visiting the Mayans, labeled as visiting the Nephites
Painting of Christ visiting the Mayans, labeled as the Nephites

It’s even possible that we’ll see the re-insertion of the following painting into the Book of Mormon. This is the one that depicts both Mormon and Moroni at the New York Cumorah. It was in the missionary editions of the Book of Mormon for many years before being replaced with M2C artwork.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

the indictment of M2C

People have asked about the indictment of M2C that I said I would unseal in January.

The new Church policy, set out in the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography, makes the indictment moot.

IOW, now that M2C proponents are no longer allowed to promote their M2C dogma in “Church settings,” there’s no need to unseal the indictment.

At least, not yet.

I’ve known about this essay for a long time. I expected it to be released many months ago, actually. While it’s not everything I hoped for–as I’ve explained, it has lots of errors that should be corrected ASAP–it represents the first step in a major change in the direction of the Church.

In my view, M2C is an obsolete, discredited theory that will dissipate soon enough now that Church support has been withdrawn. 
_____

Maybe, if the new policy is not really enforced, or is enforced unevenly, then it will be time to unseal the indictment.

For example, if the M2C citation cartel continues to promote M2C on their web pages and in their publications, then unsealing the indictment will be appropriate and necessary.

If Church settings, including visitors centers, media, artwork, etc., ignore the new policy and continue to promote M2C, then unsealing the indictment will be appropriate and necessary.

We’ll continue to monitor developments.

In the meantime, we think it is best to let M2C die on the vine, without fanfare. Soon it will be nothing more than another episode in Church history.

Unsealing the indictment would have brought more attention to M2C, its history and its proponents. None of that seems necessary any longer. We want to encourage those proponents to change course and focus on how they can support and sustain the teachings of the prophets instead of repudiating them.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

CES Letter and Gospel Topics on Geography

While the new Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography is an important step towards correcting the errors that have crept in over the ages regarding M2C, as it currently stands, the essay may cause more problems than it solves.

The Gospel Topics essays don’t exist in a vacuum. We have to consider the larger context to understand how people will read this essay.

Most people who have questions (especially youth and friends/investigators) will consult a variety of sources.

Missionaries teaching with iPad 

When a missionary/member introduces someone to the Book of Mormon, what is that someone most likely to do? Pray about it, or search the Internet?

We hope they’ll pray about it, but we know for sure they’re going to spend at least a few minutes online searching for information, which means they will read not just Church sites, but also critical sites.

One of the most popular of these is the CES Letter. Those who work with the youth in the Church, the missionaries, or the less active, know that the CES Letter has become influential for many people.

To understand how the new Gospel Topics essay appears in the context of what people read on the Internet, let’s look at what the CES Letter says about Book of Mormon geography (footnotes omitted, original in blue, my comments in red):

6. Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions. 

This premise is understandable because of what M2C scholars have been teaching, but the text has no indication of such large populations (I’ve discussed this here). IOW, CES Letter is using the speculations of M2C scholars–not the text itself–to attack the Book of Mormon. 

This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. 

These “unofficial apologists” are the M2C scholars. This is as good as summary as you will find anywhere. The missionaries have no response to this criticism because they’ve all been taught the same thing throughout CES and BYU.

This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught. 

The Gospel Topics essay completely avoids this key point. Students in CES and BYU also never learn what the prophets have taught. It is inexcusable for members of the Church (including the youth and missionaries) to learn what the prophets have taught about Cumorah for the first time from critics of the Church. 

As currently written, the Gospel Topics essay lends credence to the CES Letter because it ignores what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. 

It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants. 

The Church has announced the termination of the Cumorah pageant after 2020. The Cumorah Visitors Center will soon be remodeled (the budget has already been approved) and will likely be renamed as the Church History visitors center with no mention of Cumorah. These two developments support the point made by the CES Letter. 

We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site. 

These exaggerated numbers result from a common misreading of the text, as we learn from Letter VII. In reality, many weapons of war have been found on and near the Hill Cumorah. In 1832, the embankment around the hill was still visible, as reported by Heber C. Kimball. Since then, the valley has been heavily farmed. 

John E. Clark, director of BYU’s archaeological organization, wrote in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: “ In accord with these general observations about New York and Pennsylvania, we come to our principal object – the Hill Cumorah. Archaeologically speaking, it is a clean hill. No artifacts, no walls, no trenches, no arrowheads. The area immediately surrounding the hill is similarly clean. Pre-Columbian people did not settle or build here. This is not the place of Mormon’s last stand. We must look elsewhere for that hill.”

Here we have a prominent BYU professor teaching that the prophets are wrong. His article has been cited repeatedly by other M2C scholars. I addressed it here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/01/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-1-john.html
_____

I realize the Cumorah issue has been hotly debated by intellectuals in the Church, but M2C has tainted their interpretation of both the text and the physical evidence. It is counterproductive to censor the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

In this context, the Gospel Topics Essay lends support to the CES Letter and other critics. A revised Essay that affirms the teachings of the prophets would follow the pattern established by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and would support faith in the Book of Mormon.

_____

On a separate topics, I’m in Oregon right now. A reader sent me this National Geographic article that I’ll discuss more next week, but I mention it here because the first photo in the article shows Haystack Rock, which is just a few hundred feet from where I am writing this.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/when-and-how-did-the-first-americans-arrive–its-complicated-/

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Is lds.org a "Church setting?"

The new Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon Geography says, among other things,

The Church urges local leaders and members not to advocate theories of Book of Mormon geography in official Church settings.

One question the essay doesn’t answer is whether lds.org itself is “an official Church setting.” 

This new policy will have many ramifications, but with regard to the Internet, there are three possibilities.

1. The links on lds.org to M2C-promoting web pages are removed from lds.org.

2. The content on the M2C-promoting web pages changes to comply with the new policy; i.e., the M2C citation cartel stops promoting M2C.

OR

3. The links on lds.org to M2C-promoting web pages are not removed from lds.org.

This would mean that the new policy is going to be selectively enforced in favor of M2C, and/or lds.org itself is not a “Church setting.”

It will be interesting to see which alternative becomes the new reality.
_____

It seems obvious that lds.org is a “Church setting.”

It also seems obvious that the M2C citation cartel is not about to change their editorial position or the content of their web pages.

That leads to the only viable alternative.

All links to M2C-advocating sites should be removed from lds.org. This includes links to BYU Studies, FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, and any other site that advocates a particular theory of Book of Mormon geography. 

_____

On this blog, I’ve shown lots of examples of how these organizations and groups, which I refer to collectively as the M2C citation cartel, advocate M2C. For new readers, here’s on example.

Go to https://byustudies.byu.edu/

Today’s “daily feature” promotes an M2C book, saying it “ought to be on the bookshelf of everyone interested in Book of Mormon geography.”

BYU Studies promoting M2C, 31 Jan 2019

BYU Studies also features, right on their home page, the infamous map of “Book of Mormon places” that teaches people the prophets were wrong about Cumorah.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/charts/160-plausible-locations-mesoamerica-book-mormon-places
_____

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon Geography

Great news!

A Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography has been posted.

https://www.lds.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng

I’m very happy to see this new policy because finally, it allows members of the Church to evaluate the teachings of the prophets without the M2C* filter.

(*M2C is the acronym for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.)

For decades I’ve attended Church meetings at which M2C was being taught. I learned it in my classes in Seminary and at BYU. I went to an M2C fireside just a few months ago in Utah County. There was a large crowd of members of the Church assembled in a stake center to learn about M2C. I’ve attended others in chapels where current BYU professors have taught M2C. Such presentations conveyed the impression to Church members that the Church approved of M2C.

Worse, there was disparate treatment of different geography theories. While M2C presentations were allowed throughout the Church (including CES and BYU), other presentations that focused on the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah in New York were aggressively banned.

This essay declares that the Church now officially has no preference for one theory over another.

In other words, from now on, Church members will have no further reason to infer that the Church endorses M2C, and anyone who states or implies otherwise is contradicting Church policy.
_____

This Gospel Topics essay is an important step toward correcting errors that have crept in over the years.

However, because the essay contains much of the same material found in the work of the M2C scholars who have written similar things for years, I’ll make some suggestions for improvement in terms of clarity and accuracy.

Original in blue, my comments in red, other quotations in green.

Book of Mormon Geography

Overview

The Church takes no position on the specific geographic location of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings but to focus instead on the Book of Mormon’s teachings and testimony of Jesus Christ and His gospel.
Everyone agrees that the message of the Book of Mormon is far more important than its historicity. The quasi-official endorsement of M2C has been a major stumbling block for decades, both for members of the Church and for friends (investigators). And yet, as we’ll see below, historicity is a critical element in fulfilling the purpose of the Book of Mormon.
Presumably “Church settings” in this essay includes classes taught by CES and BYU. Eliminating M2C from these classes is a tremendous change and a big step forward.
One area that this essay leaves unclear is how to deal with the consistent, persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. I have watched General Conference when prophets and apostles have explicitly taught that the hill Cumorah is in New York. These talks are still available on lds.org. Plus, the Joseph Smith Papers, including Joseph’s own history, still contain explicit teachings about the New York Cumorah. 
As written, this policy appears to censor references to or discussion of these materials in Church settings. I suggest that if this is the intent, the essay should be more specific; i..e., it should say “Teachings of past prophets and apostles regarding the Hill Cumorah should not be shared or discussed in Church settings.”
In addition to those general conference addresses discussed below, here are two examples in which the New York Cumorah was specifically taught:
General Conference talk by President Marion G. Romney: 
General Conference talk by Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Twelve: 
The risk of censoring such teachings, of course, is that Church members and friends (investigators) will only learn about these teachings of the prophets from critics, such as the CES Letter. That is the current situation, and it is causing confusion and dismay among active members of the Church.
I propose that the essay be edited to acknowledge the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah as a separate issue from the location of other Book of Mormon sites.
The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. This history contains information about the places they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features, and the distances and cardinal directions between important points. The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon.
The term “the Americas” is a recent paraphrasing of actual teachings of the prophets. The essay would be more accurate to use the terms used by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who referred to “this country” when discussing what Moroni taught about the remnant of the Lamanites. 
Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. 
This paragraph of the essay conflates two separate categories of teachings by the prophets and apostles. Careful and complete analysis of the formal teachings of the apostles and prophets shows that they have always taught that (i) the Hill Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don’t know the locations of the other events in the Book of Mormon. This different treatment of the two separate topics has been consistent and persistent since the early days of the Church. The essay should be revised to clarify this distinction. The prophetic teachings about the New York Cumorah do not determine any other issue of geography, a point the prophets have made many times. 
Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon except that the events it describes took place in the Americas.
This is true with regard to point (ii) above, but all of the prophets and apostles who have ever addressed the issue have affirmed that there is one Hill Cumorah and it is in western New York. As written, this paragraph confuses members of the Church who study the teachings of the prophets and apostles. 
This paragraph also raises an important question about the so-called “abstract” maps used by CES and BYU, neither of which depict “the Americas.” Instead, the youth of the Church are being taught that Lehi landed in a fantasy land that doesn’t exist in the real world. The maps are generated by computer, based on the M2C interpretation of the text. The essay would be helpful if it stated a policy on the use of computer-generated fantasy maps to teach the Book of Mormon. 
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America. While traveling with Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote to his wife Emma that they were “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”1 In 1842, the Church newspaper Times and Seasons published articles under Joseph Smith’s editorship that identified the ruins of ancient native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.2
The first statement converts an inference into a declaration of fact and should be rewritten to accurately state the facts.  
Notice the difference between the two sources cited in this paragraph. 
The first source is directly from Joseph Smith–a letter he wrote to his wife Emma. 
The second source is an anonymous article that has been long attributed to Joseph, even though there is no historical evidence that Joseph actually edited the Times and Seasons and lots of historical evidence that he did not do so. (For example, he sent the letters that became D&C 127 and 128 to the actual editor of the Times and Seasons to have them published. Because D&C 128:20 refers to Cumorah, it should be addressed in this essay to avoid confusion.)
Furthermore, while Joseph’s responsibility for or approval of the anonymous Times and Seasons article remains a topic for historical analysis because he never explicitly endorsed it, the essay should clarify that any statements about ancient civilizations in Mexico and Central America have no bearing on the explicit teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. 
For example, Letter VII, which declares it was a fact that the Hill Cumorah in New York was the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, was published in official Church newspapers, by Joseph’s own brothers, both before and after the 1842 article cited above. 

Letter VII was published in the Times and Seasons itself in 1841 by Joseph’s brother, Don Carlos, at the direction of Joseph Smith. Joseph’s brother William Smith, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time, republished Letter VII in the Church newspaper called The Prophet in New York City in June 1844–ironically two days after Joseph Smith was martyred in Carthage. 

Today anyone can read Letter VII in Joseph Smith’s personal history in the Joseph Smith Papers, here:
Footnote 2 is also misleading and should be revised. It reads, “Although it is not clear how involved Joseph Smith was in writing these editorials, he never refuted them.” The footnote claims that because we have no historical records of Joseph refuting these editorials, he therefore never did refute them. By this reasoning, because we have no historical records of Joseph explicitly approving these anonymous editorials, we should conclude he didn’t approve of them. 

Both cases are examples of the absence of evidence fallacy. An accurate footnote would state, “Although it is not clear how involved Joseph Smith was in writing these editorials, there is no historical evidence that he ever explicitly approved of them or refuted them.”

To reiterate, these editorials have no bearing on the location of Cumorah in New York. 
Anthony W. Ivins, a Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth.”3
The inserted paraphrase is misleading and should be omitted because President Ivins was one of the Church leaders who made the clear distinction between (i) the known New York Cumorah and (ii) the uncertainty about the rest of Book of Mormon geography (the topic of his 1929 sermon).
On April 6, 1928, President spoke in General Conference about the Hill Cumorah in New York, which the Church had recently purchased. Both of his talks (1928 and 1929) should be addressed in this Gospel Topics essay; simply omitting one (and quoting the other out of context with a misleading paraphrase) creates a false impression of what President Ivins actually taught.
In his 1928 address, after discussing the Hill Cumorah in New York and explaining it was the location for the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, President Ivins said,
All of these incidents to which I have referred, my brethren and sisters, are very closely associated with this particular spot in the state of New York. Therefore I feel, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, that the acquisition of that spot of ground is more than an incident in the history of the Church; it is an epoch—an epoch which in my opinion is fraught with that which may become of greater interest to the Latter-day Saints than that which has already occurred. We know that all of these records, all the sacred records of the Nephite people, were deposited by Mormon in that hill. That incident alone is sufficient to make it the sacred and hallowed spot that it is to us…. Those additional records will come forth, they will be published to the world, that the children of our Father may be converted to faith in Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, through obedience to the doctrines which he taught.”
The distinction President Ivins made between Cumorah and the rest of the geography is made clear when the 1929 sermon excerpted in part in this Gospel Topics essay is read in context. Note what precedes the excerpt and bracketed paraphrase. “There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution.”
In 1929, President Ivins was not casting doubt on the location of Cumorah, as the Gospel Topics essay currently implies. This Gospel Topics essay would avoid confusion and fully inform readers by including both quotations from President Ivins’ General Conference addresses to reiterate the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets on these two separate topics: (i) Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don’t know where the other events took place.
The Church urges local leaders and members not to advocate theories of Book of Mormon geography in official Church settings. 
Again, this is a wonderful change from past practices which favored M2C over other ideas.
Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”4
Absolutely, I think everyone agrees this is the primary purpose for studying and sharing the Book of Mormon. We all love the Book of Mormon and want to share it with the world because it testifies of Jesus Christ.
The new policy that prohibits M2C presentations in Church buildings, at which M2C speakers repudiate the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah, is an important step to achieving the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon. 
_____
I hope my suggestions for improving the accuracy of the Gospel Topics Essay are helpful.
Now I’d like to comment on the historicity question.
Moroni explained why he and his father wrote the plates: “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”
The open question is whether a policy that censors the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah will enhance or detract from the effort to focus on the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon. 
I don’t think that the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah detract from the purpose of the Book of Mormon; otherwise, they wouldn’t have taught about the Hill Cumorah in General Conference and in other official settings. 
For that matter, Joseph would not have had Letter VII published and republished in all the Church newspapers of his day.
Today, thanks to the CES Letter and other critics, the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon is under attack much as it was in 1834 when Joseph and Oliver responded by writing the first Gospel Topics essays, the eight historical letters. They concluded that focusing on the facts–the facts of the visit of John the Baptist, the facts of the visit of Moroni, and the facts of the Hill Cumorah–were the best way to respond to claims that the Book of Mormon was fiction.
It seems to me that the responses they provided in 1834 and 1835 are equally effective today, if not more so.
However, I realize that M2C has been taught for so long that it will take time before people are ready to accept the teachings of the prophets again.
While this Gospel Topics essay is an important first step toward correcting the M2C errors that have crept in over the years, I hope it’s not the last step.  

For example, this essay should mean we will see a change in the artwork, media, and visitors centers that have been portraying M2C for decades, as we’ve discussed on this blog many times.

Because the Church now no longer has a position on Book of Mormon geography, we can expect a change in the visitors centers so they will no longer depict specific Book of Mormon settings, such as this display in the North Visitors Center on Temple Square that puts Mormon in a Mayan cave while Moroni is off in New York burying the plates. This display specifically teaches that there are two Cumorahs, one in New York and one in Mesoamerica.

I’ve discussed all of this many times on this blog and it’s wonderful to see it being addressed in a Gospel Topics essay this way.

E.g., http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/12/yes-they-do-teach-two-cumorahs-theory.html


Maybe we’ll even see BYU change it’s M2C-inspired fantasy map that teaches students the Book of Mormon can best be understood as taking place in a fictional, computer-generated fantasy land.


Source: Book of Mormon Wars