A couple of weeks ago on my Interpreter blog, I posted a table that summarized the differences between my approach to Church history and the approach taken by prominent LDS scholars, including Dan Peterson, Mike Parker, Stephen Smoot, Jack Welch, Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, and their followers and donors. My table was based on the published work of these scholars.

In response, Mike Parker wrote me an email to correct my table, at least with respect to his own views. [For those who don’t know Mike Parker, see below*]

I appreciate the feedback so we’ll discuss it in 5 parts. This post is for Part I.

Mike’s response is a good summary of the arguments in favor of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) that have been made for over 100 years. I don’t say these M2C arguments are unreasonable or irrational. They are among the multiple working hypotheses that I always acknowledge and cite. 

I encourage everyone to know what the M2C advocates teach. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and we should all seek to understand their explanations.

As a former M2C advocate, I think I understand their explanations, and I’m always eager for better information and correction, as I’m showing in this post. However, in my opinion, the M2C explanations are not the best explanations for the evidence, and all interested parties deserve to know why.

More importantly, everyone realizes that any legitimate LDS scholars would freely acknowledge not only the M2C interpretations of the text, the historical record, and extrinsic evidence, but also the explanations that do not support M2C; i.e., the interpretations that support the New York Cumorah. Those who insist on acceptance of their own beliefs, without offering fair and open consideration of alternative interpretations, are not scholars but mere advocates, like corporate marketing executives.

Latter-day Saints and everyone else interested in the Restoration deserve a legitimate comparison of different interpretations–multiple working hypotheses–of the text, the history, and the evidence. As of today, with the exception of Mike Parker, the LDS scholars mentioned in this post have refused to provide, or even to participate in developing, such a comparison. 

Thus, kudos to Mike. 

I’m happy to use his input to compare the alternatives to help people make informed decisions. I hope this is a step towards a more comprehensive comparison. If all LDS scholars who speak or publish on this topic participated, Latter-day Saints and others would have a reliable basis for making informed decisions.

This table shows my comments along with Mike’s. I numbered his paragraphs for ease of reference. To be sure, Mike’s comments are brief, but they incorporate considerable material. Hence, my detailed discussion.

If I have in any way misunderstood Mike’s points, I hope he will clarify further.

Discussion.

Mike: 1. There has been no divine revelation that identifies the hill near Joseph Smith’s home as the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. Claims that Moroni called the New York hill Cumorah are late and secondhand.

My response: Mike starts by avoiding the main point; i.e., that, according to Mike, Oliver did not tell the truth about Cumorah. While it’s easy to understand why Mike (and other M2C advocates) avoid this point, that’s no excuse for not owning their own position. Their discomfort does not excuse their obfuscation.

Mike’s second sentence contradicts his first; i.e., he acknowledges there is historical evidence that Moroni called the New York hill “Cumorah,” which would constitute “divine revelation” by any standard. By not specifying which “claims” he rejects, we must infer he rejects all of the historical evidence supporting the New York Cumorah. At the same time, he fails to support his first sentence with any evidence at all, beyond his mere assertion.

Fundamentally, Mike tries to persuade readers to think past the sale; i.e., he expects readers to assume that the only way Oliver could state it was a fact that Cumorah is in New York is if (i) Oliver (or Joseph) had received divine revelation on that point, (ii) they recorded that revelation as such, and (iii) such a record is extant today. But that’s a phony requirement for 3 reasons:

1. Oliver’s statement of fact is supported by the personal experience he related about when he and Joseph entered the repository of Nephite records in Cumorah multiple times; i.e., no “divine revelation” required.

2. Mike’s declaration that “there has been no divine revelation” is not supported by any evidence, nor could it be, because of the inherent impossibility of proving a negative [i.e., absence of an extant record of such a revelation is not evidence that no such revelation occurred]. 

3. In any case, as Mike admits in his second sentence, the historical record includes specific evidence of divine revelation about the New York Cumorah. Mike rejects the record as not credible, a conclusion reasonable people can disagree about, but that does not support his claim that no such revelation occurred.

Detailed response: 

At the outset, Mike forgot to acknowledge that in Letter VII, Oliver declared it was a fact that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah was the same hill in New York from where Joseph obtained the plates. This is why I framed the issue as a binary; i.e., Oliver either told the truth or he lied. He left no room for an inference that he was speculating. Mike, like other M2C advocates, evades this point with a series of logical fallacies.

Mike’s claim that there is “no divine revelation” is the same premise used by RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills 100 years ago, as I discussed here: https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html. Stebbins and Hills were the first to come up with the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C). Over the objections of Joseph Fielding Smith and others, LDS scholars adopted M2C and promoted it as their own.

The “no revelation” argument is a sleight-of-hand rhetorical tactic. 

First, the argument glides over the distinction between “revelation” and “experience.” Most people consider a truth claim based on physical, tangible experience to be more credible than a spiritual (or psychological) revelation, which in turn is more credible than intellectual speculation. Thus, Joseph Smith described the First Vision as a physical experience (“I saw a pillar of light… I saw two personages”) instead of merely relating a spiritual impression, revelation or dream. We think of the restoration of the Priesthood by John the Baptist as an experience, not merely a “revelation.” Thus, we can say there was “no divine revelation” about the restoration of the Priesthood; instead, it was a physical experience. [If Mike is arguing these events were revelations and not experiences, then we have a more fundamental problem with all of the truth claims by Joseph and Oliver.] 

The distinction is crucial because Oliver claimed he and Joseph had an actual experience when they entered the repository of Nephite records in the New York hill, as reported by Brigham Young and others. Thus, Oliver’s declaration that it was a fact that Cumorah is in New York was based at least in part on his personal experience, which supersedes revelation in terms of credibility. 

[Although Mike didn’t mention it, M2C advocates typically dismiss Oliver’s accounts of the visit to the repository as a spiritual experience because Heber C. Kimball referred to a “vision.” However, in context, Heber undoubtedly meant a “view” of reality in the same sense as Joseph’s First “Vision” account.]  

Second, while it’s true that we have no extant first-hand record that Oliver and Joseph claimed a specific revelation about Cumorah, that obviously does not mean neither of them ever received such a revelation. 

Third, we actually do have a second-hand record that Joseph learned about Cumorah through a revelation because, according to Lucy Mack Smith, Moroni revealed the name of the hill to Joseph the first time they met, as anyone can see in the Joseph Smith Papers here. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41

She also recorded that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah in early 1827 before he even got the plates.

These may be two of the unidentified accounts to which Mike refers when he writes “Claims that Moroni called the New York hill Cumorah are late and secondhand.” Lucy’s account was recorded after Joseph’s death in 1844, which some historians consider “late.” However, Lucy had been relating Joseph’s history before she finally had it recorded. 

In fact, Lucy’s claim of a revelation from Moroni was corroborated by Parley P. Pratt as early as 1830 when, during their mission to the Lamanites, he recorded what Oliver was teaching the Indians; i.e., that “This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.” 

If Mike refers to Oliver’s Letter VII, published in 1835, as “late,” it still is earlier than Joseph’s own testimony in 1838, which has been canonized as Joseph Smith-History. 

If Mike refers to D&C 128:20, first published in 1842 as a letter from Joseph to the Saints, 

Mike: 2. Early Latter-day Saints believed that the two hills were the same. That belief was based on assumption, and we cannot and should not fault them for coming to that conclusion. They, of course, did not realize their own assumptions, which is an extremely common human tendency.

My Response: Mike offers zero evidence to support his claim that “that belief was based on assumption.” By any reasonable standard, given what Lucy Mack Smith and Parley P. Pratt tell us, the historical record indicates “that belief” in the New York Cumorah was based on what Moroni told Joseph Smith the first night they met. Other historical evidence corroborates this basis for what early Latter-day Saints believed, such as David Whitmer remembering that the first time he heard the word “Cumorah” was when he met the divine messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah. 

The irony of Mike’s position is that he seems oblivious to the reality that his rejection of the historical record is based on his own assumption that Cumorah cannot be in New York. Although he observes that making assumptions is an extremely common human tendency, he then fails to recognize that his entire argument is based on a mere assumption of his own.

Mike: 3. Extrinsic evidence does not confirm that the New York hill was the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, and internal evidence from the text also strongly suggests that it was not.

My Response. The argument about extrinsic evidence in turn relies on a series of assumptions about the text actually says, and then using those assumptions to generate criteria for extrinsic evidence. IOW, it’s all circular reasoning. Someone who assumes Cumorah is in Mesoamerica can interpret the text accordingly and then find extrinsic evidence to support that interpretation. A shorthand example is the requirement for volcanoes, which the text never mentions or describes, yet which the M2C proponents insist is implied by the text. 

Similar circular reasoning supports the New York Cumorah. Someone who assumes Cumorah is in New York can interpret the text accordingly and then find abundant extrinsic evidence to support that interpretation.

Thus, the “extrinsic evidence” argument is not a legitimate basis for rejecting what Oliver and others taught about the New York Cumorah. 

The internal evidence argument is also circular reasoning. While M2C proponents can find a way to interpret the text to imply two separate hills (repository vs. stone box), nothing in the text states or implies that Moroni did not deposit the abridged plates in the same hill Cumorah where the repository of records was located; i.e., in New York. Orson Pratt explicitly explained that there were “two departments” in the hill Cumorah in New York, and nothing in the text contradicts that explanation.

Furthermore, as described in Letter IV, Moroni told Joseph that the record was “written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home near Palmyra, New York. If the record was written in the vicinity of where it was deposited, then it was written in New York. 

People can reject this historical evidence as well, but the historical record supports and corroborates the New York Cumorah. 

It should go without saying that the New York Cumorah makes a lot more common sense than the idea that Moroni hauled heavy gold plates, along with other Nephite relics, thousands of miles from “another Cumorah” in Mesoamerica to western New York. 

_____

Part II next. 

_____

*Mike Parker is a contributor to the Interpreter. I don’t know much about him. Recently he claimed he was the infamous “Peter Pan” who writes an ad hominem blog that Dan Peterson has been promoting for years, but that doesn’t make sense because articles in the Interpreter list Mike Parker and Peter Pan as separate contributors. In the last two weeks, I offered to meet Mike for lunch when I was in southern Utah, but he refused. Because I have never met him personally (that I recall, anyway), he is merely a name on an email, which means he could be no more real than the Peter Pan pseudonym, but I’ll proceed on the assumption Mike Parker is a real person. 

Source: About Central America

I continue to be impressed and encouraged by the changed editorial approach at BYU Studies. As I state at the end of this post, “Let’s all encourage this more diverse and open direction, and let’s hope it will break down the walls surrounding the citation cartel.”

As readers here know, for many years I’ve advocated a more inclusive, open, and candid model for LDS scholarship. Ideally, everyone should be encouraged and enabled to make informed decisions by comparing alternative interpretations of Church history, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures.

It seems to me that the ideal way to achieve unity in diversity, and to avoid and eliminate contention, is to seek to understand one another without insisting on conformity to dogma, particularly when the dogma is based on someone’s personal interpretations. It is liberating to (i) feel confident and happy with one’s own worldview, (ii) be willing and able to share and explain that worldview (give a reason of the hope that is in us), and (iii) not take offense when others disagree or even criticize.  

Unfortunately, many (if not most) LDS scholars do not agree. They act as gatekeepers who insist on conformity with their own views. That is an ongoing problem that I attribute to the citation cartel framework they have established. One prominent example is the Interpreter Foundation, the very name of which reflects an assumption of authority by its principals to “interpret” history and doctrine for the rest of us. The editors there have assumed a role reminiscent of the biblical Pharisees known for their “insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law.”

The name of this blog–Book of Mormon Central America–reflects the sad reality that Book of Mormon Central has chosen to promote its Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory exclusively, thereby excluding alternative faithful interpretations of Church history and the teachings of the prophets. Years ago, when Jack Welch told me he was offended by the name, I explained that I would gladly change the name and even remove the blog from the Internet if he would change his editorial approach by recognizing alternative faithful interpretations of Book of Mormon origins and setting. All I ask is a fair and accurate comparison of the alternatives, including the New York Cumorah.

To this day he has refused to do so. Thus, the blog endures. 

Back then, as editor of BYU Studies, Jack used the journal as a vehicle to promote his M2C agenda. After he left, though, BYU Studies has improved significantly. I’ve discussed this before, such as here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2021/10/byu-studies-strikes-again-part-1.html

_____

From time to time, some LDS scholars pay lip service to a more serious approach.

BYU Studies recently released a volume on the Book of Abraham. In the Conclusion, the authors make a statement that, if actually followed by LDS apologists and historians, would mark a sea change for LDS scholarship. Such a paradigm shift would benefit everyone, LDS or not, who is interested in the Restoration. The paradigm shift would also benefit those who read and follow the critics of the Restoration, who adhere just as rigidly to their own critical dogma as does the LDS citation cartel.

Although it should be evident that we tend to favor certain theories over others when it comes to explaining the nature and translation of the Book of Abraham, we do not presume to impose our understanding on others as an article of faith. We are happy to acknowledge that Latter-day Saints can in good faith come to different conclusions about the nature of this book of scripture and “pursue a faithful study of the Book of Abraham from different backgrounds and approaches.”1 In fact, we welcome these different approaches and encourage a multitude of voices to contribute to the conversation.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/conclusion/

Imagine how much healthier LDS scholarship would be if LDS scholars generally, and Jack Welch specifically, adopted such an approach.

We note first that such a declaration probably could not have been published while Jack Welch was editing BYU Studies. For whatever reasons, he has long been opposed to alternative faithful interpretations, and his approach remains in effect at Book of Mormon Central.

We note second that at least one of the authors credited with this paragraph, Stephen O. Smoot, has a well-earned reputation for eagerly and fiercely attacking anyone who reaches different conclusions than his. 

Smoot “is currently an adjunct instructor of religious education at Brigham Young University and a research associate with the B. H. Roberts Foundation.” We are left to speculate whether this paragraph marks a sea change for him personally, or whether his authorship was attached to this conclusion by accident. 

Time will tell on that question.

_____

The larger point is that, with this declaration in BYU Studies, we can hope and expect we are entering a new phase of LDS scholarship that extends beyond the Book of Abraham. Maybe there is a new generation of LDS scholars who are actually “happy to acknowledge that Latter-day Saints can in good faith come to different conclusions about the nature of this book of scripture [and the Book of Mormon] and “pursue a faithful study of the Book of Abraham [and the Book of Mormon] from different backgrounds and approaches.”

While we can’t hold out much hope for Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, Meridian Magazine, and other members of the citation cartel, BYU Studies is moving in a positive direction. 

Let’s all encourage this more diverse and open direction, and let’s hope it will break down the walls surrounding the citation cartel.

Source: About Central America

One of the themes of General Conference was unity, such as these quotations (see below).

“Unity does not require sameness, but it does require harmony.”

“I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign and vilify anyone who does not agree with them.”

Some Latter-day Saints seem to think differences of opinion about Book of Mormon origins and settings are worth arguing about, but I don’t. I’ve been promoting unity for years with these graphics (click to enlarge).

There is no litmus test on these issues. People can believe whatever they want.

One way to handle differences of opinion is through understanding and full disclosure. That’s why I encourage people to consider all the facts and the multiple working hypotheses based on those facts.

But the LDS M2C and SITH citation cartels continue to insist on adherence to their ideology instead.

Maybe the latest General Conference will help dislodge intransigence and lead to more considerate and respectful exchanges as we seek to understand one another?

_____

Elder Christofferson’s talk summary

At the end of the Last Supper, Jesus Christ offered a sacred Intercessory Prayer, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name [mine apostles] whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11). He then expanded it to include all believers. 

“Where God prevails in all hearts and minds, the people are described as ‘in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God’” (4 Nephi 1:17).

Paul offers a key to how unity can be achieved in a contentious world: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. … for ye are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:27–28).

It’s an effort that starts individually. “Becoming one in Christ happens one by one — we each begin with ourselves.”

Putting on Christ includes “making His ‘first and great commandment,’ our first and greatest commitment” to love God. 

“Unity with our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ grows as we heed the second commandment … to love others as ourselves.”

Unity is more than agreeing that everyone do their own thing — it’s having a common cause. 

“Unity does not require sameness, but it does require harmony.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2023/4/2/23666330/elder-christofferson-april-2023-general-conference-unity-christ

President Nelson’s talk summary

“I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign and vilify anyone who does not agree with them.”

Disciples of Jesus Christ are to be examples of how to interact with others — especially when faced with differences of opinion. “One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people.”

The Atonement of Jesus Christ made it possible to overcome evil, including contention. 

“Today, I am asking us to interact with others in a higher, holier way. Please listen carefully. ‘If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy’ that we can say about another person — whether to his face or behind her back — that should be our standard of communication.”

Contention and peacemaking are both a choice. “You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation.” Choose to be a peacemaker.

Charity, or the pure love of Christ, is the antidote to contention. 

“Examine your discipleship within the context of the way you treat others. I bless you to make any adjustments that may be needed so that your behavior is ennobling, respectful and representative of a true follower of Jesus Christ.”

Source: About Central America

Our letter was published with an appropriate photo.

Letter: Challenging the seer stone consensus on Book of Mormon translation

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2023/03/28/letter-challenging-seer-stone/

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

I’ll be traveling this week so I don’t plan to post anything for a few days, but with General Conference arriving, I wanted to point out something from the last conference.

Elder Dale G. Renlund provided “A Framework for Personal Revelation.” His framework is the best explanation of revelation that I know of. It is well worth re-reading often.

Consider these excerpts:

When we ask for revelation about something for which God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear….

If God has answered a question and the circumstances have not changed, why would we expect the answer to be different? …

Joseph learned, as the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught: “Seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For … he counseleth in wisdom.”²⁵ Jacob cautioned that unfortunate things happen when we ask for things we should not. He foretold that the people in Jerusalem would seek “for things that they could not understand,” look “beyond the mark,” and completely overlook the Savior of the world.²⁶ They stumbled because they asked for things they would not and could not understand.

Because this blog discusses the historicity of the Book of Mormon, let’s apply these principles to what we know (or should know). 

1. “When we ask for revelation about something for which God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear….”

While many different views/interpretations/opinions have been expressed about Book of Mormon historicity and the setting for the events, we have had clear direction about one site from the first night Moroni visited Joseph Smith: Cumorah is in New York.

How does the Lord provide clear direction if not through the channels He has established in the Church? Lest there be any confusion about Cumorah, Oliver Cowdery, as Assistant President of the Church, formally, clearly, and unambiguously declared it is a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates. He published his declaration in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835 as part of a series of eight essays he wrote, with the assistance of Joseph Smith, about Church history. 

Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Oliver’s essays into his journal as part of his life history. You can read it in the Joseph Smith Papers here:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

In ensuing years, Joseph approved the publication of Oliver’s essays in the Gospel Reflector and the Times and Seasons. They were republished in England in the Millennial Star and separately as a popular booklet. They were republished in New York in The Prophet and in Salt Lake City in the Improvement Era.

The New York Cumorah has been taught repeatedly and consistently ever since, including by members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. 

Nevertheless, some LDS scholars explicitly reject these teachings and seek to persuade others to also reject them. Which leads to the next point.

2. If God has answered a question and the circumstances have not changed, why would we expect the answer to be different? 

We can legitimately ask, have any circumstances changed since the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah?

Obviously, the history and geography has not changed. The Hill Cumorah in New York is still in the same location, just as Oliver described it, along the road between Palmyra and Manchester. The mile-wide valley west of the hill is still there. Thus, we should not expect God’s answer to be different today.

But one circumstance has changed. For most of Church history, members accepted the clear direction we’ve been given about Cumorah, but a handful of influential scholars have used their positions of trust to persuade members to reject these teachings.

This leads into the third point from Elder Renlund.

3. Joseph learned, as the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught: “Seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For … he counseleth in wisdom.”25 Jacob cautioned that unfortunate things happen when we ask for things we should not. He foretold that the people in Jerusalem would seek “for things that they could not understand,” look “beyond the mark,” and completely overlook the Savior of the world.26 They stumbled because they asked for things they would not and could not understand.

In the early 1900s, RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills concluded that the Hill Cumorah was not in New York because New York was too far from the Mesoamerican setting they assumed for the events of the Book of Mormon. They began to “look beyond the mark” and concocted the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory (M2C). In 1917, Hills even published a map showing the “real” Cumorah in southern Mexico.

LDS scholars gradually adopted the same rationale. They rejected the counsel from the prophets about Cumorah and they, too, chose to “look beyond the mark.” 

Alarmed at the development, Joseph Fielding Smith, then Church Historian and an Apostle for 20 years, declared:

“This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.”

When he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Joseph Fielding Smith reissued his warning about the two-Cumorahs theory. 

However, LDS scholars and educators rejected this counsel, claiming his warning was based on his personal opinion that was wrong. Instead, according to them, their own M2C ideas were correct. 

President Marion G. Romney was assigned to attend the Hill Cumorah pageant. In the following General Conference, he reported on his experience, reaffirming yet again the well-established setting of Cumorah. The teachings of these two leaders was included in the Institute manual for many years, as we saw here: https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html

But the scholars persisted. Even now, in 2023, LDS scholars and educators actively teach that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York. They teach that Joseph adopted a false tradition about Cumorah, and that all the Prophets and Apostles who reaffirmed the teaching of Letter VII were also expressing personal opinions—even when they spoke in General Conference.

We saw an example of this within the last week, which we discussed here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/03/most-people-would-go-with-heartland.html

The teachings of the M2C scholars has degenerated to the point that they castigate anyone who still believes the teachings of the prophets!

_____

Now we’re seeing the fulfillment of President Smith’s warning. Because of M2C, many members of the Church are confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. 

Instead of accepting the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and interpreting the text accordingly, the M2C scholars have rejected those teachings and are stumbling about, searching not only in Mesoamerica but around the world for the Cumorah that we’ve known all along is in western New York.

The rejection of the prophetic teachings about Cumorah reminds us of several scriptural teachings. Alma explained how, when people reject clear direction, they stumble and lose the knowledge they once had.

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; 

(Alma 12:9–11)

7 Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you.

(Doctrine and Covenants 5:7)

31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

(Doctrine and Covenants 58:31–33)

6 Nevertheless, I did harden my heart, for I was called many times and I would not hear; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know;

(Alma 10:6)

Source: About Central America

Some time ago I was in a conversation with several well-known M2Cers. The topic of alternative models of Book of Mormon geography arose. During the discussion, one M2Cer asked, “Why don’t we just create a comparison chart that shows all the major models, with pros and cons?” 

Their leader shook his head. “I’ll never allow that,” he said.

“Why not?” she asked.

“Because most people would go with the Heartland.”

_____

It’s easy to see why most Latter-day Saints would “go with the Heartland” when we watch the defense of M2C that Brant Gardner provided on the CWIC Media show the other day.

At the outset, I emphasize that Brant is an awesome guy. I like him. He’s nice and personable, as well as a smart, knowledgeable, faithful Latter-day Saint who has written as much as anyone about Book of Mormon origins (translation) and setting (Mesoamerica). He undoubtedly means well and is obviously convinced of his worldview. His M2C theory is a legitimate working hypothesis. 

However, before considering the CWIC Media interview, we need to provide some context. Brant is a regular participant in the M2C citation cartel, which continues to misrepresent the so-called Heartland theory and tries to deter people from considering it by falsely linking it to racism.

Last year, during an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, he repeated a deplorable stereotype about the so-called Heartlander theory: “It has allowed a very jingoistic, very racist approach to the Book of Mormon,” Gardner said. “And there are a lot of people that resonates with.” 

The article continued: 

Offline support [for the Heartlander ideas] also appears to be gaining ground, according to Brant Gardner, a Book of Mormon scholar who has written numerous books in defense of the Mesoamerican model. “I see it frequently in wards and talking to people,” Gardner, who lives in New Mexico, said. “It’s a lot more prominent than it was.”

Exactly how popular the Heartland model has become is hard to say. As a reference, [Wayne] May points to the crowds he is able to draw when speaking at private events, estimating anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 might attend the lectures over three days.

“There are a lot of Saints out there that are very, very interested in what we’re doing,” May said, “and they’re paying close attention.”

To this, Gardner grudgingly agreed. “We can’t get that many people to any of our conferences,” he said, referring to his own community of supporters of the Mesoamerican model. “It’s a point of envy.”

Envy explains a lot of the actions of the M2Cers. I discussed the interview here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/04/m2c-citation-cartel-hanna-seriac-and.html

_____

With that background, let’s consider the interview. 

If you don’t want to read all of this, here’s the summary:

The basic M2C rule of historical analysis: No matter who says it, or when, or in what context, if they say Cumorah is in New York, their claim is, by definition, misleading, ignorant, speculative, and definitely wrong.

_____

Brant started right off with his racist worldview at 3:39: “we really would like selfishly to have the Book of Mormon be ours and and be in a place where frankly we white people have been.” 

Race a bizarre fixation of the M2Cers. Brant’s not the only one, as you can see if you follow the writings of the M2C apologists. It’s a goofy red herring fallacy.

Moving on, Brant next claims (4:31) “you have to have a narrow neck of land.” 

Of course, we can all see that the only “narrow neck of land” in the text is in Ether 10:20, but the M2Cers conflate that with a “narrow neck” without noticing the qualifier “of land,” and also conflate it with a “small neck of land” without noticing the difference between “narrow” and “small.” While it’s not unreasonable to conflate these three features, it seems more reasonable to me that three different terms refer to three different features. 

IOW, the traditional “hourglass” shape is not required or specified by the text, but instead by the conflation of three different terms. Again, not unreasonable, but also not a justification for excluding other interpretations of the text.

The M2C interpretation assumes that “land northward” and “land southward” are proper nouns referring to specific locations. I can only speak for my view, which is that these are relative terms depending on the reference point; i.e., the location of the speaker/writer using these terms. Thus, Salt Lake City can be a “land southward” if you are in Logan, or a “land northward” if you are in Provo. That seems so obvious to me that it is self-evident, but the M2Cers disagree. 

Which is fine. 

But this shows why a side-by-side comparison of these issues would be so productive and useful.

I won’t detail all of Brant’s theories, but you can see he is repeating the traditional M2C interpretation to constrain the possibilities to Mesoamerica instead of what the text actually says. I refer to this as the “Sorenson translation” of the Book of Mormon.

For example, he conflates the term “sea” with “ocean” instead of looking at the way the term is used in the KJV, where it means a large body of water (e.g., Sea of Galilee) as well as a “mighty river” (e.g., the Nile). 

At 8:10, he ironically claims “you have to do some real interesting linguistic work to take the headwaters of the sidon and make it a Confluence of rivers,” yet the text itself never uses the term “headwaters.” That’s another Sorenson translation. It’s audacious “linguistic work” to change the text to fit your preconceived ideas and then pass that off as a requirement of the text! 

Then he says, “the text of the Book of Mormon says that the land of Nephi is higher than the land of Zarahemla if you’ve got a river that’s going between those two areas fluid dynamics tells you it has to go downhill which means it has to go north so the text says you need a North Flowing River.”

This presents us with a dilemma. Is he merely ignorant of the Heartland model, or is he deliberately misleading his viewers/listeners? 

Because Brant’s a good guy, I chalk this up to ignorance. Most Heartlanders agree with the M2C inference that the land of Nephi is higher in elevation than the land of Zarahemla, and that there is a river between them. However, the M2Cers further infer that this must be the river Sidon, but the text doesn’t say or imply that.

We’ve explained for years that you do get to the land of Zarahemla (Illinois) from the higher land of Nephi (Tennessee) by going downhill on a north-flowing river (the Tennessee River). It’s an easy solution. I suspect not many M2Cers have lived in Tennessee (as I have) or are even familiar with the geography and river systems there, which may explain why they overlook this simple point.

He refers to Brian Hales’ upcoming work that apparently states the obvious: it’s easier and faster to go downstream than upstream. Brian’s a great guy, and I’m sure his paper will be peer-approved by the Interpreter, but why bother? 

The rest of Brant’s interview replows the same old ground, but let’s look at what he says about Joseph and Oliver.

_____

at 17:15, Brant articulates the M2C approach of “Joseph Smith, follower” theory, based on the “Oliver Cowdery, deceiver” theory.

Seriously, look at this. They actually teach that Oliver Cowdery misled Joseph Smith about Cumorah!

He says, “the historians who’ve looked at Joseph Smith using terminology, he doesn’t start using that until I think 1838 is the time we first get Joseph Smith recorded as saying it was, you know, the hill Cumorah, but why is he calling it The Hill Cumorah? Well because everybody else is. You know Oliver Cowdery was early doing that, so Joseph picked up on the vocabulary. It’s the same thing we’ll talk about with the Urim and Thummim, you know that’s a late vocabulary Joseph didn’t use it for a long time then eventually did. He picked up the language that everybody else was using he’s no different than the rest of us he’s lived in a community and when the community starts using a certain term for something he ended up using it.

This is the same theory Stebbins used back in 1911. I’ve written about this, and some people have challenged me to show where our M2C scholars teach it. They’ve spelled it out explicitly in several places, but it is implicit in everything they write about Cumorah. 

Now you have Brant laying it out for everyone to see. 

Here’s how Stebbins explained it back in 1911, as I discussed here:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/origin-and-rationale-of-m2c.html

Stebbins claimed that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were speculating on Book of Mormon geography as an excuse for the actual Hill Cumorah being in Central America.

I know that in Doctrine and Covenants 10 : 20 it reads, “glad tidings of Cumorah,” but it is in a letter from Joseph Smith, evidently after the idea had become fixed that because records were hidden in Cumorah therefore the one in New York must have been the same hill.

In his “Letters,” pages 29, 33, Oliver Cowdery calls it Cumorah, evidently from the same idea, not from any divine or angelic statement that it was Cumorah. Certainly the idea did not originate with any careful student of the Book of Mormon. There may not have been any real study of the book at that time. The book appears to have been largely taken on trust by the old Saints, without great examina­tion or study.

If you’ve read the writings of the modern M2C scholars, they have adopted the Stebbins rationale instead of accepting the teachings of the prophets. 

The interviewer, Greg, pointed out to Brant that Lucy Mack Smith says Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah during his first visit: “the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone…”

Note: You can read this in the Joseph Smith Papers here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41]

Brant’s response is to reject what Lucy wrote, not because she wouldn’t have known, or is not a credible witness, but because it contradicts Brant’s own narrative! 

Brant, confronted with Lucy’s explanation, says:

17:48. 

Brant: that is actually not known. The record of that comes late. the record of it speaking back to that period yeah and and that’s part of the problem you… 

Greg: so you say and I’m sorry to interrupt you but you were saying that Moroni doesn’t say Cumorah? 

Brant: at least we do not know exactly what he said because they say it later. You know, that later designation, by the time that gets written down everybody’s saying Cumorah and that’s the way everybody knows the hill and so that term gets put into the historical record.

According to the M2Cers, everything in Church history that contradicts M2C is a false narrative, while everything that somehow supports M2C is a true narrative–including Sorenson’s revised translation of the text!

That’s the basic M2C rule of historical analysis. No matter who says it, or when, if they say Cumorah is in New York, it is by definition misleading, ignorant, speculative, and definitely wrong.

It’s amazing.

_____

You can go through the interview and find more of the same, but one we should spend a moment on is Brant misquoting the Wentworth letter. We’ll end with this.

Brant claims Joseph wrote “continent” when he actually wrote “country,” then he says there is “a big important difference between continent and country.” 

We can all agree with Brant that there is a big difference between continent and country, which is why the Wentworth letter is so important.

First, recall that Mr. Wentworth had learned about Cumorah in 1841, as I discussed here:

https://www.lettervii.com/2016/09/wentworth-learns-about-cumorah-in-1841.html

Second, we might wonder, how could Brant have made such an obvious error?

Maybe he relied on the M2C orientation of the lesson manual that deliberately omitted this portion of the Wentworth letter in a lesson focused on the Wentworth letter!

You can see how it is edited here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-38?lang=eng

You can see how this has been edited in all the language versions. For example, the French version is here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-38?lang=fra

I’ve been informed that the editors of the manual did this to avoid a discussion of the implications of this passage, which is another fascinating topic to discuss some day, but the omission in the lesson manual doesn’t justify M2C scholars changing the language of the Wentworth letter (the way they do with the Sorenson translation).

This is a serious issue because non-English speakers have access to the teachings of the prophets mainly, if not exclusively, through this lesson manual. And most English speakers won’t look beyond the lesson manual anyway, so they are susceptible to the M2C spin about the Wentworth letter.

This is the antithesis of the openness we’ve come to expect, but it is particularly egregious here because Joseph started the letter by writing “all that I shall ask at his hands, is, that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation.”

Joseph didn’t need to worry about the editors in 1842. Today, in 2023, we can’t even get the Curriculum Department to publish the account entire.

Here’s the link where I discussed this before:

https://www.lettervii.com/2018/07/editing-wentworth-letter.html

[My critics say I’m criticizing Church leaders when I criticize this lesson manual, but that’s false. No Church leaders favor censoring the explicit teachings of Joseph Smith the way this chapter in this manual does.] 

An excerpt:

If you want to read the entire letter, you can see it in the Times and Seasons link above, or on lds.org at this link: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

But you can’t read the entire letter in the lesson manual because the following passage was omitted:

Direct quotation from the lesson manual (note the ellipses):

“Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.… This book … tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this continent after His resurrection;”

Direct quotation from the original letter (with the omitted portions in red): 

“Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.

“In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this continent after His Resurrection;“
_____________________

It turns out, Joseph didn’t need to worry about Mr. Barstow declining to “publish the account entire.” Instead, he needed to worry about the Curriculum Department.

It’s bad enough that they deleted the important passage in red, but they even deleted the “also” so readers would have no idea that the Book told us something else important.

Source: About Central America

Yesterday I did a live interview with Kerry Shirts (aka the Backyard Professor) and Steven Pynakker of Mormon Book Reviews. Both of them are great guys who focus more on understanding others’ points of view than on arguing about who is correct.

I’m happy to see this type of openness and recognition of multiple working hypotheses. 

We can lay out the available facts, let everyone articulate the assumptions they make when interpreting those facts and the inferences they use to fill the gaps in the narratives, then set out the theories they use to explain their views of reality, and finally propose the hypotheses they adopt for additional inquiry.

In other words, everyone can show their work and then everyone else can assess it according to their individual worldviews, biases, incentives, interests, etc. A comparison chart would be especially useful.

Maybe someday even LDS apologists will adopt this approach?

Here’s the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65qupDVbmM

We only had time to answer a few questions at the end. In future podcasts we’ll spend more time on audience questions.

_____

Some people have questioned my appearance on a Mormon Discussion podcast, since most of their podcasts are cynical and critical. But not all hosts are the same, and the two hosts on this podcast are thoughtful, insightful, and fun.

I’m happy to talk with anyone, but especially those who share my interest in understanding one another; i.e., having discussions about multiple working hypotheses. I’d be happy to speak at a FAIRLDS conference, for example, but so far they haven’t wanted to hear alternative faithful interpretations. 

I’m happy to speak with evangelicals, Hindus, atheists, Muslims, or anyone else who seeks mutual understanding.  

In my view, instead of constantly trying to argue about who is correct, it’s more interesting and more productive to seek to understand one another and find ways to work together to improve society.

I look forward to future podcasts with these guys!

Source: About Central America