Author: Jonathan Neville

I’m very enthusiastic about the renewed emphasis on Church history. Everyone is reading Saints, which is awesome.

But there is another aspect of the tragedy of Saints to consider.

Because the book censors all references to the New York Cumorah, it reinforces skepticism about Church history.

Think about this: a book titled “The Standard of Truth” deliberately censors a key teaching of the founding prophets, their contemporaries and their successors.

Fortunately, there is still plenty of time to correct this censorship in the digital editions, but that correction will not happen as long as M2C* prevails.

Imagine how much more powerful the book Saints would be if it educated the Latter-day Saints about these historical facts instead of censoring them.
_____

Remember that the top two reasons Millennials give for leaving the Church are

– “I felt judged or misunderstood.”
– [tied for first] “I did not trust the Church leadership to tell the truth surrounding controversial or historical issues.”

https://religionnews.com/2017/01/27/do-mormons-leave-the-church-because-they-got-offended/

Saints is making the problem even worse by reinforcing the perception that the Church doesn’t tell the truth about its history.

As a result of the pervasive censorship about the New York Cumorah, critics of the Church know more about this problem than most members do. E.g., http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

Imagine what the youth of the Church (and investigators) think when they learn the truth about the New York Cumorah from critics instead of their CES/BYU teachers (and the missionaries).
_____

Thanks to our M2C intellectuals, we have Visitors Centers, Institute and Seminary manuals, BYU/CES, and the Church History Department all teaching that Cumorah cannot be in New York. Instead, they tell people that there are “two Cumorahs.” They say the “real Cumorah” is in Mexico, while the “hill in New York” was falsely named Cumorah by early Church members, thereby creating a false tradition that Joseph Smith passively adopted.

And now Saints solidifies M2C by censoring all references to the New York Cumorah.


The M2C promoters don’t even tell students that the prophets and apostles have taught the New York Cumorah consistently for 180 years, including in General Conference. When a student finds out and asks about it, their BYU/CES teachers claim the prophets and apostles were wrong.

It’s a double-whammy.

First, through their censorship of Letter VII and the New York Cumorah generally, the M2C intellectuals (and Saints) don’t tell the truth about what prior Church leaders have taught, thereby reinforcing the main reason why Millennials leave the Church.

Second, the M2C intellectuals claim the prophets and apostles are wrong, which, if true, leads people to wonder why we have prophets and apostles in the first place. What can possibly be more destructive to faith than having BYU/CES teachers telling students the prophets and apostles are wrong?
_____

Here is a table of examples of censorship in the first volume of Saints. There are more examples, and there will be more in the next three volumes, but this gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

_____
* M2C is the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

The material doesn’t appear in the Joseph Smith papers. It’s not in my usual sources (Dan Vogel, Dale Broadhurst (http://olivercowdery.com/, centerplace.org, the M2C citation cartel, etc).

This all started as a chapter in my next book. I was writing about the Early Modern English fad, along with the translation generally. Now there is so much material that I can only summarize it in the book, but I’ll probably write a separate more detailed book for people who like references.

I’m going to present it for the first time publicly at the Book of Mormon Evidence Conference in Sandy, Utah, on Sept. 28-9.

I hope to see you at the conference.

Title Page, Part One of Volume 3

BTW, the timing is perfect. It’s just a few days after the BYU Studies event in Provo on Sept. 25. This is the one where Brothers Skousen and Carmack are introducing their new book the Critical Text series. I’ll discuss that at the conference on the 28th and 29th.

I hope everyone is familiar with the Critical Text project. It is phenomenal. I refer to it all the time. My only problem with it is the Early Modern English theory, as we’ve been discussing.

Here’s the main web page: http://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/

I’ve gone through most of these books in detail, including Parts 1 and 2 of Volume 3. Part 3 of Volume 3 is the book they are going to be discussing on September 25.

Maybe they’ll address the points I’ve discussed in this series on the M2C web and EME-OT. Maybe they’ll address the new material I’m working on right now.

I hope they do, but I doubt they will.
_____

My other talk at the conference is on Saints, the new Church history book. It’s going to be epic.

🙂
_____

making assumptions about Joseph’s dialectal usage

I repeat that I greatly admire and respect them and their work, overall. I just think they’ve made a major mistake on the Earty Modern English issue.

Here’s a passage from p. 13 of Part One of Volume 3 that explains their position that I disagree with.

It reads:

In quite a few cases, the Book of Mormon usage is restricted to Early Modern English and died out by the 1700s. One surprising finding is that nearly all the Book of Mormon usage that many have thought to be simply Joseph Smith’s Upstate New York dialect has actually been identified as Early Modern English. In other words, the original Book of Mormon text is archaic English (dating from Early Modern English) rather than Joseph Smith’s dialectical English.

[I don’t think anyone can say what Joseph Smith’s dialectal English was apart from the text of the Book of Mormon, because we don’t have an electronic recording of it. Brothers Skousen and Carmack assume Joseph’s dialect can be reconstructed from his brief writings, but no one speaks the way they write, as I’ve discussed before. Certainly we can’t discern a particular dialect from examining ngrams of published works.]

This important finding will be thoroughly discussed in part 3 of volume 3 of the critical text. There Stanford Carmack and I will consider virtually all the strange words, phrases, and syntax from the original Book of Mormon text, most of which have never been edited out of the text but which fit best as examples of Early Modern English usage rather than Joseph Smith’s dialectal usage from the early 1800s.

Well, we’ll see.

🙂
_____

BTW, Here are two specific points you might find interesting.

One of the rationales for the revisionist history that has Joseph simply reading the English words off the seer stone instead of translating is an interpretation of certain passages from 2 Nephi 27, as Brother Carmack lists them in Part 1 of Volume 3:
 
11- the words of the book … shall be read by the power of Christ
19 – the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned
20 – wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee
22 – when thou has read the words which I have commanded thee
24 – the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him

I can see how some people interpret these passages to mean Joseph was merely reading the words on the seer stone; i.e., that he didn’t actually translate the Nephite records, but simply read the translation that had been accomplished by someone else who, inexplicably, used Early Modern English. This is what I call the EME-OT theory; i.e., the Early Modern English-Other Translator theory. 

However, that strikes me as an implausible interpretation for all the reasons I’ve been discussing, as well as the reasons I’ll explain at the conference on Sept 28-9.

In the meantime, I wanted to address this specific theory about reading the words. Here are the verses from 2 Nephi 27, with my commentary:

5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity.

[When the M2C intellectuals tell me (and others) that they don’t care what the “dead prophets” have said about the New York Cumorah because the current prophets and apostles haven’t specifically reaffirmed the New York Cumorah (the last time an apostle taught it in General Conference was 1978, 40 years ago), I think of this passage. 

Here Nephi tells us that when we reject the prophets, the Lord covers the seers. Beginning around 1978, LDS intellectuals began specifically and overtly rejecting the prophets’ teachings about the Hill Cumorah, and most Church members since then have gone along with them thanks to the Academic Cycle and the M2C employees at CES. BYU and COB. According to verse 5, we should therefore expect the seers to be “covered” on this topic.]

6 And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.

[Notice here that Nephi does not say “shall bring forth unto you the words of this book.” This is additional evidence of the two sets of plates; i.e., that the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), which we call the small plates, were not part of the set of plates Moroni put in his stone box on the hill Cumorah. Joseph never had the plates of Nephi when he was in Harmony. Had Martin Harris not lost the 116 pages, Joseph would never have received the plates of Nephi in Fayette. Today we would have had what Joseph called “the Original Book of Mormon,” not the combination of part of the abridgment plus the plates of Nephi which we have instead.

Speaking of D&C 10, notice how in verse 45 the Lord told Joseph “it is wisdom in me that you should translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work.” The reference to “this work” relates back to D&C 9:1, when the Lord told Oliver to continue “until you have finished this record,” meaning the plates Joseph got from Moroni’s stone box. Once they finished those plates, the Harmony plates, there would be “other records” to translate; i.e., the plates of Nephi they didn’t have yet (and didn’t even know about until Joseph received D&C 10). 

Notice also that the Lord told Joseph to “translate” the “engravings of Nephi.” He didn’t say read someone else’s translation. He didn’t say “just leave the plates under a cloth, because you don’t need them.” He told Joseph to translate the engravings. 

7 And behold the book shall be sealed; and in the book shall be a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof.

Again, this is not the book Nephi was writing; it did not include 2 Nephi 27. This book is yet to come forth, of course.

8 Wherefore, because of the things which are sealed up, the things which are sealed shall not be delivered in the day of the wickedness and abominations of the people. Wherefore the book shall be kept from them.

We still live in the day of wickedness and abominations, so the book is kept from us.

9 But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto another;

The physical book was delivered to Joseph by Moroni. Joseph then delivered the words of the book to Oliver Cowdery (meaning, he translated the words and dictated them). 

10 But the words which are sealed he shall not deliver, neither shall he deliver the book. For the book shall be sealed by the power of God, and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book until the own due time of the Lord, that they may come forth; for behold, they reveal all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof.

Joseph never delivered the book; i.e., he never gave over the plates, except to the witnesses. 

11 And the day cometh that the words of the book which were sealed shall be read upon the house tops; and they shall be read by the power of Christ; and all things shall be revealed unto the children of men which ever have been among the children of men, and which ever will be even unto the end of the earth.

This is yet future, but certain.

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

Here are the 2 witnesses.

13 And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.

This deserves a little comment. This has always seemed a little strange; why would verse 12 specify three witnesses, only to have verse 13 say “a few” would also view it? Usually we interpret this to mean the eight witnesses, but I think they more likely handled the plates of Nephi instead of the Harmony plates (the abridged plates), for all the reasons I’ve explained. But there were “a few” others who saw the Harmony plates, including Josiah Stowell and Mary Whitmer. They did bear testimony of the word. Alternatively, maybe the eight witnesses would have handled the Harmony plates, including the sealed portion, had Martin Harris not lost the 116 pages, in which case Joseph would not have needed the plates of Nephi.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!

15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.

Notice, the Lord did not tell Joseph to take the words on the seer stone; instead, he told him to take the words of the engravings, which is what Joseph gave Martin to take to New York. Obviously, had these “words” consisted of an Early Modern English translation, the professors in New York could have read them. 

BTW, some people think Joseph didn’t know about this prophecy until after Martin Harris returned from New York, but President Cowdery’s letters explain that Moroni told Joseph about this prophecy the first night he visited him. 

16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God.

17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed.

18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it.

Anthon couldn’t read the engravings, but he could have read Early Modern English if that was what Martin Harris had taken him; i.e., if the term “words” in verse 15 means EME. 

19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned.

This is Joseph saying he’s not learned. It’s not clear what it means by “deliver again,” because we don’t have a record of Joseph giving up the book when Martin Harris left for New York.

20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

Joseph has to read the words that the learned could not read; i.e., the engravings. Here, though, the passage could also refer to the words the Lord would “give” Joseph through the Urim and Thummim.

21 Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work.

We don’t know exactly how they were sealed, but apparently they were not sealed in a matter that prevented Joseph from getting into them if he wanted to, so the Lord had to tell him not to touch them. Of course, all of this is inconsistent with the now-popular opinion that Joseph never used the plates.

22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men.

Brigham Young explained that Joseph returned the plates to the depository in the Hill Cumorah, which is consistent with this passage. Those would have been the plates Joseph showed to the Eight Witnesses; i.e., the original plates of Nephi. Joseph also explained in JS-H 1:60 that he gave the plates to the messenger “according to arrangements.” Those would have been the Harmony plates he gave to the messenger before leaving Harmony.  

23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.

Once we have the faith to accept the teachings of the prophets and of the Book of Mormon, we will get the rest of the plates.

24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

This is consistent with Joseph reading the engravings that were delivered to him. 

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men

26 Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid.

The conflict between the prophets and the intellectuals will be resolved in favor of the prophets. Including on the issue of the New York Cumorah.

_____

Ensign, Sept. 2018

The September Ensign/Liahona includes an awesome article on the last page titled “Led by Living Prophets.”

Everyone should read it.

We have to wonder if there’s a mole working at the Ensign to persuade members of the Church–including the M2C intellectuals–to follow the prophets.

A few more articles such as this and we might end up with more members of the Church aligning with the prophets instead of the intellectuals.

Next, we hope the mole somehow gets Letter VII republished in the Ensign/Liahona, the way it was republished in the Times and Seasons, the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, The Prophet, and The Improvement Era. It is also in the Joseph Smith Papers, but hardly anyone knows it.

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

Ensign, Jan. 1973

The current Ensign/Liahona article is an excerpt from a talk given by Elder Mark E. Petersen in General Conference in October, 1972.

It was published in the Ensign in January, 1973.

Six years later, Elder Petersen gave a talk in General Conference titled “The Last Words of Moroni.”

You can read and listen to it here:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-last-words-of-moroni?lang=eng

As we’ve come to expect by now, the M2C intellectuals say he was wrong. But remember that Elder Petersen was merely reaffirming the consistent and persistent teachings all of his Apostolic predecessors; i.e., that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.
_____

Here are key excerpts from the current Ensign/Liahona, along with additional excerpts from Elder Petersen’s 1972 talk in blue and his 1978 talk in purple, interspersed with statements from our M2C intellectuals, all in pink.

It’s one of many examples of how this issues gives us a clear choice between scholars and prophets.

Which set of teachings do you believe?
_____

Always when the Lord has had a people on the earth whom He has recognized as His own, He has led them by living prophets to whom He has given guidance from heaven. …

Who can worship intelligently if kept in ignorance?

Human beings are slow to learn the ways of the Lord, and particularly are they dilatory in accepting the fact that although He is willing to communicate with them, His method of doing so is through inspired living men whom He designates as prophets.

Paul told the Ephesians that the church of Jesus Christ was built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets, with the Savior himself as the chief cornerstone. (See Eph. 2:20.)

Who were the prophets of that day?

The Twelve were included, of course. 
_____

Moroni’s father was commander of the armies of this ancient people, known as Nephites. His name was Mormon. The war of which we speak took place here in America some four hundred years after Christ. (See Morm. 6.)

As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York.


Their enemies, known as Lamanites, came against them on this hill. 

There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd… a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.
_____

Since the Savior commanded his people to become perfect as their Father in heaven (see Matt. 5:48), he set up his church to provide the means by which this could be accomplished. Hence, he gave them apostles and prophets.

When finished with the record, Moroni was to hide it up in that same Hill Cumorah which was their battlefield. It would come forth in modern times as the Book of Mormon, named after Moroni’s father, the historian who compiled it.

The Hill in New York, mistakenly named Cumorah by early Saints…

The name stuck and over the years the tradition developed that the hill was the site of the last Nephite battles.

The primary issue at stake for Latter-day Saints is how to correlate the traditional concept that the last battles were fought in New York with the newer concept that they were fought in Mexico.

These inspired men were in the church also to preserve unity among the saints and to heal divisions in the flock “that we henceforth be no more … tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. …” (Eph. 4:14.)

In Isaiah’s day it was the people who turned away from God. The Lord did not turn from the people.

Since the 1950s, opinion among Book of Mormon scholars has increasingly trended toward the realization that the Nephite Cumorah and the Hill in New York cannot be the same.

It was the same in the Savior’s day. Do you recall that he said to those about him: “… how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37.)


God does not abandon his people. It is the people who abandon God.

It is true that a number of Church leaders in the past expressed the opinion that the hill in New York is the same hill described in the Book of Mormon. Statements from Joseph Smith or others on geography are not binding on the Church. 

We solemnly testify that communication between heaven and earth has been reestablished in our day. We declare that God is not isolated from the world.

He speaks, eloquently, to his living prophets and through them to the world at large.

Had not the Lord said to them, as he says to us now, that America is a choice land and that those who live here must obey God or be swept off?

In closing his record, and knowing that it would come to us, Moroni pleaded with us, the modern inhabitants of this land, to escape the kind of tragic end which had obliterated his people.

Mormon then wrote directly to us as modern Americans who now occupy this promised land and said: “How can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways?

So this is the message of Moroni. He came back from the dead to deliver it—in these modern times.

His people were Americans, too. His words constituted a people-to-people message, ancient Americans speaking to modern Americans. 


The last words of Moroni! Dare we forget them? God grant that we never will, I pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

When I first heard about the new book series titled Saints, I was enthusiastic. It was being organized and written in an interesting narrative style. There is a tremendous need for a clear, concise, accurate and well-documented source for Church history, especially among non-English readers who don’t read English.

Saints fills that need very well. I’m still enthusiastic about the book series. I support the series and encourage everyone to read it. Everyone involved with Saints has done phenomenal work and deserve our gratitude for a job well done.

But… in subtle yet unmistakable ways, and probably unintentionally in many respects, Saints pushes revisionist Church history.

I think this is a tragedy.

To help people see what has happened, I’m publishing a series of comments on Saints, coming from a faithful perspective. I’m providing the original sources and significant events readers will not find in Saints.

I’ll cover each chapter, first on a blog and eventually in print and e-book. Here is the blog:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/
_____

You may think it’s much too late to address these issues now that the books have all been translated and printed, but I haven’t waited until now. I raised these issues over a year ago with people in charge of Saints, but they decided to proceed with the M2C narrative anyway.

In reality, the print versions don’t matter that much. Most readers will get digital copies. Here in Africa, everyone reads e-books. That’s true in India and China and most of the world, actually.

So there’s hope.

Digital editions of Saints in all languages can be edited to educate readers about the teachings of the prophets and delete or edit the existing content accordingly.
_____

The book series is designed to allow people to access Church history in terms of breadth and depth, as this chart shows.

Theoretically, this design allows Church members to learn as much as they want in both directions. As such, it is a wonderful resource. I strongly support the book series and its objectives.

Fortunately, the books cite original sources.

Unfortunately, those sources are still in English.

More unfortunately, the narrative leads readers to accept a particular point of view that I call revisionist Church history. Saints omits key events, changes terminology, includes phony quotations, and obscures important elements in Church history. All of this undermines the objective of educating and inoculating members of the Church and investigators.

Because it is being heavily promoted and translated into 40+ languages, Saints will cement revisionist Church history as the standard. Readers will never learn of key events in Church history that have been the basis of prophetic teachings since the Church was organized.
_____

Even before it was published, I had concerns about Saints because many of the people involved are  within the M2C bubble. They don’t realize it; they just assume M2C. And they don’t seek or accept input from outside that bubble.

If you ask, most Church historians have a stock answer. They will tell you they are not in the M2C bubble because they don’t have an opinion about Book of Mormon geography. They’ll say they’re neutral, that the issue doesn’t matter, etc.

But if it didn’t matter, they wouldn’t have revised Church history the way they have.

In fact, they’ll say they carefully avoided addressing the issue when they wrote Saints.

But as you’ll see in my commentary, “carefully avoided” means “deliberately changed” the history. Saints changes wording and omits references to censor what early Church leaders said about the New York Cumorah and related issues.

I’m not reading minds; I don’t care about motivations, anyway. I’m just looking at the words on the page.

Saints was written to accommodate M2C.

Think about this. To “avoid” the issue of Book of Mormon geography they had to revise and censor Church history. 

What does that tell you about the original sources?

It tells you that the original sources support and affirm the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

People inside the M2C bubble don’t want Church members to know what the prophets have taught, and they successfully wrote Saints to accomplish this, all the while pretending it’s not an important issue.

That’s why it’s a tragedy.
_____

Church history is fascinating and faith-affirming, but many Church members don’t know much more than the basics. This makes them susceptible to claims by critics that the original accounts are wrong.

Such critics come from both outside and inside the Church.

The old History of the Church was helpful, but ultimately misleading and incomplete. For example, its editors converted third-person accounts into fictitious first-person narrative by Joseph Smith.*

More recent publications favor the revisionist Church history that teaches Joseph never actually used the plates, Joseph and Oliver were wrong about the New York Cumorah, and lately that Joseph didn’t actually translate the plates after all (the Early Modern English-Other Translator theory).

I disagree with the revisionist historians because I think the evidence supports what the original prophets taught. Plus, all of their successors have affirmed these teachings.

Church members are best served by the truth. Then they are immune to the critics, whether they come from outside or inside the Church. Revising Church history to accommodate M2C and other theories is not helpful.
_____

People are going to tell me that I’m wrong to criticize Saints because it has been “approved by the Brethren.”

First, I fully support the Brethren in everything they do. There has been a tremendous need for an accurate Church history in multiple languages. Saints is an important, even critical project.

Second, the books were written by employees, not Church leaders. I realize that some employees like the 14th Article of Faith, but I don’t think most of them do, and I don’t either.

Third, Saints is not scripture. It is not the teaching of the prophets. When it contradicts the teachings of the prophets, or misleads readers about what the prophets have taught, I don’t think it is above criticism.

Fourth, the Brethren necessarily and understandably trust and defer to the experts. It’s not their fault when the experts mislead the Brethren or don’t give them multiple points of view to consider before making decisions.

Fifth, if it turns out that the Brethren have decided to repudiate the teachings of their predecessors, then I’ll support them. But I’m not going to support the intellectuals who have decided to repudiate the teachings of the prophets the way they have in Saints.
_____

Here’s an example of what I’m writing about.

The series Saints has four volumes. The respective titles are passages from Joseph Smith’s famous Wentworth letter, as shown below. But this is especially ironic because the Wentworth letter is one of the most notorious examples of M2C censorship.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Wentworth letter.

Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and in Germany, Palestine, New Holland, Australia, the East Indies, and other places, the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.

The Correlation Department censored a key passage from the Wentworth letter in the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

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

Regardless of any rationale behind this censorship, the result is the same as we see in the editorial decisions in Saints; i.e., people don’t want members of the Church to read the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and related issues because those teachings contradict M2C.
_____

I reiterate that I love the book series. I think Saints will make a big difference for people throughout the world.

I just think it’s a tragedy that for purposes unrelated to accuracy, we’re getting revisionist Church history that accommodates the M2C intellectuals but leaves readers confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.
_____

* The most famous example of this remains in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon:

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Joseph never said that. The statement was Wilford Woodruff’s summary of what Joseph said during an entire day, and Woodruff didn’t put it in quotations.

I haven’t addressed it publicly because I’d find myself between CES Letter and the M2C citation cartel (FairMormon, BookofMormonCentral, BYUStudies, Interpreter, etc.). Because I haven’t been hired by the Church to guide the Saints the way the M2C citation cartel claims to have been, the 14th Article of Faith doesn’t apply to me. Fortunately.

To the extent that my explanations would make sense, the critics could deflect them by simply pointing back to the cartel as the true guides of the Church.

Seriously, as long as our own intellectuals are teaching that the prophets are wrong, what more harm can the CES Letter do anyway? 

BYU fantasy map teaching that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah

Does anyone think reading the CES Letter is worse than having students attend CES or BYU only to be taught the Book of Mormon by reference to a fantasy map that repudiates the teachings of the prophets?

I actually think it’s worse for a member of the Church to attend CES or BYU and be taught that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica than it is for a member of the Church to read the CES Letter. At least the CES Letter is clear about its assumptions.

CES and BYU don’t explain to students that M2C is based on the premise that the prophets are wrong. Nor do they tell students what the prophets have actually taught.

To be sure, the cartel has responded to the CES Letter.  There has been some give and take between the cartel and the CES Letter, leaving the whole thing in somewhat of a stalemate in which all sides can confirm their own biases.

The question is, what would unbiased observers think? 

We’re talking about the vast majority of the billions of people on the planet. Most don’t care, but if you knew nothing about the Church except the CES Letter and the responses from the M2C citation cartel, which would you find more persuasive?

Temple Square Visitors Center teaching M2C

Frankly, I find many of the cartel’s responses unpersuasive, but I’m not in the M2C bubble, and I assume those answers satisfy people who live in that bubble.

Not that I agree with the CES Letter, either. I think the author raised some good questions that many people have, and, if I shared his assumptions, I’d probably agree with him. If I shared the M2C assumptions, I’d be in the M2C bubble and I’d agree with them. I’d be stuck making the same unpersuasive answers that the cartel has provided. In both cases, it’s bias confirmation.

One thing the CES Letter and the M2C citation cartel agree on: the belief that the scholars are right whenever they disagree with the prophets.
_____

Spiderman with CES letter label (lower right)

The CES Letter is in the news because of a Spiderman comic that put a CES Letter label on the superhero’s costume.

LDS Living has made sure that tens of thousands of Church members and their families will learn about the CES Letter if they already haven’t.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Marvel-Removes-Anti-Latter-day-Saint-Reference-from-Amazing-Spider-Man-Comic/s/89180/?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=mr

Their article links to this one in the hollywood reporter:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/amazing-spider-man-comic-features-reference-anti-mormon-book-1138001

I doubt many LDS have read the hollywoodreporter, but now they will. (I used to read it all the time for work, but haven’t looked at it in years until now.)

In case there are any LDS or critics who haven’t read the CES Letter, the Beehive Slate featured it as a major headline.
http://beehiveslate.com/ linked to businessinsider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/marvel-removes-anti-mormon-reference-from-spider-man-comic-2018-8?r=UK&IR=T

So far, the news hasn’t arrived here in Africa, but I suppose it will soon enough. I suppose everyone in the world will know about the CES Letter. It’s an impressive feat of persuasion by the person who slipped it in. Removing it was even more impressive, considering all the coverage it has received.
_____

Back to the question of my response.

Until LDS scholars decide to accept the teachings of the prophets, including the ones they disagree with, a response is futile.

Still, I’ll explain my approach and then give an example of how I would respond.

The CES Letter is an exercise in bias confirmation, as most such argumentation is. Its logic is generally sound. If you accept the premises, the conclusions follow. What you really have to do is assess the premises.

That’s what I’ve been doing with CES Letter, the M2C citation cartel, and other issues I haven’t addressed publicly.

Here are the results from the M2C citation cartel.

1. M2C premise: Joseph wrote the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that provided the foundation for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory. Joseph was an ignorant speculator who  changed his mind about Book of Mormon geography and thereby confused, if not misled, the Church until LDS scholars rescued everyone with the M2C theory.

IMO, the facts contradict that premise on many levels, but basically I think Benjamin Winchester wrote the articles, that William Smith was the acting editor of the paper, and that W.W. Phelps was helping to edit. Joseph had nothing to do with them and, once they were published, he resigned as nominal editor. Consequently, these anonymous articles have zero prophetic authority and the entire M2C theory is based on a mistake in Church history.

2. M2C premise: The Hill Cumorah cannot be in New York and therefore all the prophets who taught that have been wrong.

IMO, the facts corroborate the New York Cumorah, both in terms of Church history and modern archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. Oliver and Joseph actually visited Mormon’s depository of records in the New York Cumorah, so when Oliver wrote Letter VII and stated it was a fact that the final battles took place there, he had good reason to do so. Joseph concurred by having Letter VII copied into his personal history as part of his life story and by having it reprinted in all the Church newspapers while he was alive.

3. M2C premise: there was only one set of plates, and the inexplicable events in Church history are the product of faulty memory, naive folk beliefs, and general confusion.

IMO, there were two separate sets of plates, which explains most of the otherwise inexplicable events and shows the original participants were telling the truth.

4. M2C premise: Joseph never actually used the plates.

IMO, the evidence from Joseph and Oliver, as well as the canonized revelations, shows Joseph did use the plates.

5. M2C premise: Joseph didn’t even translate the ancient record because the text is archaic and sophisticated Early Modern English.

I’ve been addressing this premise in detail in the latest series on the blog.

This is a long way of saying that I believe what Joseph and Oliver taught, and I think the evidence corroborates what they said, not what the M2C citation cartel or the CES Letter say.
_____

One example.

The CES Letter made a point about The Late War. I’m told it now just links back to the previous study, and I assume that’s because the data from the Early Modern English theory (EME) goes a long way to prove that Joseph didn’t copy The Late War.

That’s the type of research that is beneficial for everyone. Lets get the facts out and eliminate faulty premises whenever we can.

The problem that remains is two-fold.

First, the M2C citation cartel responded to The Late War by claiming Joseph never read the book, a claim I consider unpersuasive for all the reasons I’ve given. When I read through the FairMormon responses in detail, I wonder if anyone outside the M2C bubble believes what they’re saying. As long as these “guides for the Church” claim The Late War had no influence on Joseph Smith, unbiased observers are going to lean toward believing Joseph was influenced, and maybe copied some of The Late War into the Book of Mormon.

(By now, readers know that I think Joseph did read The Late War, adding its language to his own mental language bank, which naturally came out through his speech when he dictated the Book of Mormon. But that’s not copying or even using the book.)

Second, EME does show that the syntax in the Book of Mormon is, in many respects, unlike that in the Bible or The Late War. That defeats the claim of plagiarism or copying. But EME goes further and claims that the Book of Mormon text is too sophisticated and archaic for Joseph to have been the translator.

Consequently, the M2C citation cartel have now managed to persuade at least people in the M2C bubble of these three key points:

1. The prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.
2. The prophets are wrong about Joseph translating the Book of Mormon.
3. The prophets are wrong about Joseph even using the plates.

Every whack against the ties between the prophets and the Latter-day Saints weakens the remaining ties.

As long as we have a scholars vs. prophets problem going on at BYU, CES and COB, the CES Letter vs. prophets is a secondary concern.

Others disagree.

Critics who insist Joseph couldn’t have translated the text from an ancient record fall into two categories:

1. Unbelievers who say the text is a crude copy or imitation of the Bible, The Late War, and other pseudo-biblical texts, written in the 19th century. 

2. Believers who say the text is too sophisticated to have been the product of the uneducated Joseph Smith living in the 19th century. This is EME-OT (the Early Modern English-Other Translator theory).

Today we’ll look at more evidence for why I believe Joseph and Oliver.
_____

BTW, I didn’t mention this in previous parts of this series, but if you go to the Wikipedia article on The Late War, you’ll see this:

Association with the Book of Mormon[edit]

I’m a wikipedia editor and I thought about making a change here by inserting “some” before believers, and then adding this sentence at the end. “Other believers agree that The Late War, along with other books, naturally influenced Joseph Smith, but that the text is his actual idiomatic translation of ancient records.”

But I don’t have a citation (yet) and anyway, I looked at footnote 4, a reference to FairMormon’s unpersuasive response. I figured they would object to my changes because of the 14th Article of Faith. Far better to have the people at FairMormon themselves make the change, assuming they can overcome their cognitive dissonance and stop making the unbelievable argument that The Late War had nothing to do with Joseph’s dictation. Seriously, does anyone outside the M2C bubble believe that?
_____

BTW 2: I uploaded a video explanation of my take on EME-OT here:
https://youtu.be/bqPBwSt9Dhs
Subscribers already got a notice, so if you want such a notice, just subscribe to my youtube channel.
_____

I’m all in favor of academics, study, research, publication, etc. But often we can learn more from the real world if we simply open our eyes.

Recently I stood in a bread line that explained how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

We were lined up because the bakery had just brought a rack of baguettes out of the oven. The worker behind the counter was doling them out. People were taking 3, 4, 5 at a time. The bread was hot, almost too hot to handle, so long paper sacks were stacked on the counter. You had to slip the bread into each one so you could carry it.

Because I’m living in Mauritius, the people in front of and behind me were all Mauritians, descendants of immigrants from India, Senegal, and Madagascar, mostly. Our island was discovered by the Portuguese in 1507, settled by the Dutch in 1598 (the Dutch named the island after the Dutch Prince Mauritius), seized by the French in  1715, surrendered to the British in 1810, and granted independence in 1968. The French brought in slaves from Africa. When the British abolished slavery in 1835, they imported indentured servants and soldiers from India.

English is the official language of Mauritius, but everyone speaks French and Morisien, a form of Creole that is mostly French with a mixture of English and various African and South Asian languages that developed as a common language among immigrants. Mauritians speak Morisien at home, French at work, and English and French in school, although they mix everything everywhere.

Back to the bakery. Everyone was speaking Morisien, their unique and unwritten language.* And I thought, some future linguist would deny that anyone ever spoke Morisien because he/she wouldn’t find any evidence by doing n-grams of published books.

That’s one of the basic fallacies of EME-OT (the Early Modern English-Other Translator theory). 

In the real world even today, few local dialects are published. They have to be dictated to be authentic, anyway. The Book of Mormon is a rare example of a long dictated text. It’s really the only one of its kind. (I’ve heard people compare it with the Koran, but that took 23 years to complete, not 3 months.)

The Lord explained that he gave these commandments to his servants “after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24). For many believers, that settles the matter. It did for me for a long time.

But then EME-OT came along and we were confronted with faithful LDS scholars who said D&C 1:24 was wrong, or at least misunderstood and misapplied with respect to the Book of Mormon.

Whenever the intellectuals say the revelations or the prophets are wrong, I follow the adage “Trust, but verify.” I mean, trust the prophets, but verify what they teach when challenged by the intellectuals.

Once again we ask, what does the evidence support? The prophets or the scholars?

The answer is in the bread line.
_____

Everyone in line was waiting for French bread, even though Mauritius has not been ruled by France for over 200 years. French baguettes in Mauritius are an example of how cultural artifacts endure. The same is true of language artifacts.

Consider this sentence: “I took a digital photograph of a blue tattooed avatar eating lemon sorbet while kowtowing to a jaguar in a canyon swamped by a tsunami.” 

Here are the origins of the words.

“I took [Norse] a digital [Latin] photograph [Greek] of a blue [French] tattooed [Samoan] avatar [Hindi] eating [Dutch] lemon [Arabic] sorbet [Turkish] while kowtowing [Chinese] to a jaguar [Portuguese] in a canyon [Spanish] swamped [Norse] by a tsunami [Japanese].”

We don’t think consciously about the origins of the words before we speak them. We acquired our vocabulary from our parents and social environment, who acquired their language from their parents, etc. We build on that by reading books (I’m thinking 19th century) and maybe attending school.

Like English, Morisien, and every other language and local dialect, Joseph’s dialect was a combination of numerous sources: his parents, siblings, people in the community such as preachers and teachers, plus books he read.

Some people think Joseph read only the Bible. Others think he read every book in the libraries in western New York (because they claim Joseph extracted ideas and doctrines from a wide variety of books).

Common experience and the available evidence tells me that both extremes are highly unlikely. Instead, I think Joseph read a few books on topics that interested him, including The Late War, which explained the war of 1812 and was published in New York in several editions between 1816 and 1819. In those years, the Smiths were living in Palmyra among veterans of the war. Recall that the British had invaded Pultneyville, just a few miles north of Palmyra, so the war was fresh on the minds of the people Joseph grew up with.

In 1832, Joseph reminisced about this time of his life in his brief hand-written journal:  thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind 

His journal naturally focuses on religious issues, but what boy his age, pondering the “world of mankind,” would be uninterested in a recent war that included an invasion not far from his home? Plus, Joseph wrote that “At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns of for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly…”

We see he was taught to believe the scriptures. His claim that he was “searching the scriptures” is given some context by his mother in her dictated history. She described how the family would gather around Joseph, “giving the most profound attention to a boy, nineteen <eighteen> years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; for he was much less inclined to the perusals of books then any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.”

Notice, he was not a Biblical scholar. He didn’t read the entire Bible, but we know he read at least the book of James. Joseph didn’t refuse to read, either; he was “less inclined” to peruse books, but he studied deeply.

In previous parts of this series, I showed the influence of The Late War and other books. I showed also showed examples of the Early Modern English syntax appearing in other dictated passages, including the D&C, the PofGP, and Lucy’s History.

In this part, I’ll look at the likely source of unique terms in the Book of Mormon.
_____

Of the 5,673 unique words in the Book of Mormon, about 1,700 of them are used only once. Another nearly 800 are used only twice. This means nearly half of the unique words are used only once or twice. On top of that, there are unique word combinations, phrases, etc.

If, as I think, Joseph actually translated the ancient record, where did he learn these words and phrases?
_____

1. Adieu. The word adieu appears once in all the scriptures, in Jacob 7:27. How did a French word appear in the text of the Book of Mormon?

FairMormon explains that adieu was a common English term used by Mark Twain in 1905, Chaucer in 1374, and Shakespeare in 1609. It even appears in the original unpublished draft of the Declaration of Independence. That’s not a bad explanation–well, it’s definitely overkill and comes across as highly defensive–but none of it explains how Joseph Smith, living in rural western New York, learned the term.

I think a simpler explanation is that Joseph Smith’s aunt used the term in a poem she wrote shortly before she died in 1794. Lucy included a copy in her History.

What is more likely?

1. Joseph Smith’s mother shared her dying sister’s poem with the family.
2. Joseph Smith obtained Thomas Jefferson’s unpublished draft of the Declaration of Independence.

This is so obvious one has to wonder why FairMormon would not use this simple explanation. We aren’t mind readers, so we have to infer that they either (i) didn’t know about Lucy’s History or (ii) don’t want to acknowledge her influence on Joseph’s dialect. (Okay, there is third option: maybe they just prefer long, complicated, unpersuasive explanations.)

Think about this when you consider which alternative is more plausible. FairMormon consists of anonymous contributors, many of them employed by the Church directly or indirectly, which makes them authoritative under the 14th Article of Faith. Could they really be unaware of Lucy’s History?

Just asking.

And don’t worry, I realize that’s a gratuitous comment and I won’t discuss FairMormon again here. But you can see why so many people find their explanations more confusing than useful. And we haven’t even gotten to the real gems in their explanations of M2C.
_____

2. Tremendous slaughter. This phrase appears only once in the Book of Mormon. The term tremendous appears only 3 times in the scriptures, all in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 28:2 And thus there was a tremendous battle; yea, even such an one as never had been known among all the people in the land from the time Lehi left Jerusalem; yea, and tens of thousands of the Lamanites were slain and scattered abroad.

3 Yea, and also there was a tremendous slaughter among the people of Nephi; nevertheless, the Lamanites were driven and scattered, and the people of Nephi returned again to their land.

Mormon 8:2
2 And now it came to pass that after the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.

Joseph could not have learned the term tremendous from the Bible. However, the term does appear in The Late War nine times, always as an adjective modifying noise, thunder or roar; e.g., “the battle continued with tremendous roar.”

This is the kind of similarity that feeds both critics who claimed Joseph copied The Late War, and defenders who claim the usage is so different Joseph couldn’t have read The Late War.

I think the evidence could be used to confirm either bias, but an unbiased observer would note that the context is similar, suggesting Joseph may have read the book, but the specific application is so different in the Book of Mormon that it’s a most an influence. Or, as I say, a deposit into Joseph’s mental language base.

How so I resolve this one?

I read Lucy’s History.

Near the beginning of her History, Lucy explained “I have a sketch of my father’s life, written by himself, in which is detailed an account of his several campaigns and many of his advenures while in the army: From this I extract the following.—”

She puts the account in quotations, but it’s not clear whether she read the account to her scribe or handed it over to be copied. Either way, part of the quoted account of her father (Joseph’s grandfather) is this:

“The above engagement commenced early in the morning, and continued until about 3. o.clock P. M.; in which half of our men were either killed, wounded, or taken prisoners. In consequence of this tremendous slaughter, we were compelled to send to Fort Edwards for men in order to assist in carrying our wounded; which were about 80 in number.” 

There it is, Joseph’s exact phrase, taken from his grandfather’s biography.

Next, we wonder if there is any evidence Joseph knew about his grandfather’s biography. By now, you’re probably figuring there is, and you’re right. I’m going to share a long passage from Lucy’s History.

Joseph told him that he was apprehensive of a mob being there that night, and, that they must prepare themselves to drive them away: but the first thing to be attended to, was to secure the record and breast plate. In view of this it was determined, that a portion of the hearth should be taken up, and, that the Record and breast plate should be burried under the same, and then the hearth be relaid to prevent suspicion.
This was accordingly done as speedily as possible; but the hearth was scarcely relaid, when a large company of men, well armed, came rushing up to the house. Joseph threw upen the doors, and taking a hint from the stratagem of his grandfather Mack [Solomon Mack Sr.], hallooed as if he had a legion at hand; meanwhile giving the word of command with great emphasis; while all the male portion of the family from the father down to little Carlos [Don Carlos Smith], ran out of the house with such fury upon the mob, that it struck them with terror and dismay, and they fled before the little Spartan band into the woods, where they despersed themselves to their several homes.

There are all kinds of interesting things in here I’d like to discuss, but let’s just look at two.

First, the bolded passage relates back to an account in Lucy’s father’s biography you can read in the next section of this post. Here, Lucy makes the point that he “took a hint” from his own family history. That’s solid evidence that his parents shared his grandfather’s biography with him. Hence, I think this is the deposit of tremendous slaughter into Joseph’s mental language bank.

Elsewhere in her history, Lucy uses tremendous 3 more times and tremendously once. I take that as good evidence that the term was part of the language Joseph inherited. To read it in The Late War may have cemented it, but he likely heard the word as a child long before he read The Late War.

Second is another rare Book of Mormon term from Joseph’s grandfather’s biography: stratagem.
_____

3. Stratagem. This term appears 8 times in the Book of Mormon, once in Joseph Smith-History, and zero times in the Bible or pseudo texts (The Late War, etc.).  Lucy uses it 5 times in her History. This, I think, is another solid deposit of family dialect into Joseph’s mental language bank.

Here is Joseph Smith-History, 1:60 “For no sooner was it known that I had them, than the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from me. Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose.”

Here is the passage from Joseph’s grandfather’s biography, related by Lucy: I saw my danger, and, that there was no way to escape unless I could do it by stratagem. So I rushed upon them, calling in the meantime at the top of my voice, ‘rush on! rush on my boys! we’ll have the devils.’

Here is another use by Lucy: but by various stratagems one we succeeded in keeping them out of their hands

I find this highly persuasive in terms of showing that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in his own dialect.

I did a google n-gram on the term. You can enlarge it by clicking on it.

You’ll notice that the term was not common ever, but it is documented as far back as the early 1500s. That means it could support the EME-OT theory.

The term appeared to die out in the early 1700s. (Remember this data reflects published books, not how actual people actually spoke.) But then it revived with a substantial peak around 1760.

Lucy was born in 1775, which means she probably began reading serious literature around 1790. That was about where the second modern peak was. If Lucy didn’t learn the term from her parents (see the caveat below), she could easily have learned it from reading.

Although I don’t think n-grams are all that useful for assessing any particular local dialect, here we see that an EME term became popular again in the timeframe of Joseph and his parents.

There are a lot more examples, too many to describe in this blog, but I went through my methodology so you can do the same, according to your interest. There are more examples in my next book, too.
_____

Here, I need to mention a caveat. If I believed that the Book of Mormon is actually an Early Modern English text that Joseph didn’t translate because he was not an expert in EME, then I would seek to confirm my bias with an alternative explanation.

I would tell myself that because Lucy dictated her history after Joseph’s death, she herself must have been influenced by the EME in the text. IOW, she read the Book of Mormon. She read the term tremendous in three different verses. Therefore, the term became part of her vocabulary, and she merely parroted it back when she dictated her history. And, she undoubtedly borrowed the Book of Mormon phrase and attributed it to her father.

I fully expect the EME-OT intellectuals to adopt some rationalization along these lines. Confirmation bias is that strong.

I think most people would recognize how unrealistic that position would be, but my response would not be merely an appeal to common sense. First, I would point to the n-gram above. Then I would point out that Lucy never, or hardly ever, used such common Book of Mormon language as behold, thou, wherefore, etc., except when she was explicitly quoting scripture (and she never used “it came to pass”). Next, I would point to what Lucy said about the reason why she dictated her history:

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure

This indicates she had repeated these accounts for a long time. Historians will quibble with some of the details Lucy related and, if they have an EME bias, will use those quibbles to cast doubt on anything that contradicts EME. And it’s also true that Lucy’s first draft varied in many respects from her second, corrected draft.

Because of my bias, I weigh the evidence in favor of the proposition that Joseph and Oliver told the truth and that the scriptures are accurate; i.e., that the Lord revealed these things according to the manner of language of his servants.
_____

Here are a few more interesting examples.

4. Watery grave. This term appears only in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 18:18), The Late War, and Lucy’s History. Joseph couldn’t have learned it from the Bible, but he could have from either of the other sources.

5. Anxious. This term appears only twice in all the scriptures: Mosiah 29:38 (became exceedingly anxious) and D&C 121:27 (awaited with anxious expectation). It appears twice in First Book of Napoleon but not in the other pseudo texts (with anxious eye, anxious nights).

Lucy uses it 11 times in her History, often similar to the way Joseph used it (extremely anxious, very anxious, unusually anxious) and quotes Hyrum using it once (waiting anxiously). (Lucy also used the terms exceedingly and expectation, but not together with anxiety.)

When we remember that Lucy’s history was also dictated, this is good evidence to support Lucy’s influence on Joseph’s dialect.

6. In consequence. Surprisingly, the term consequence does not appear in the Bible, but it is in the Book of Mormon 4 times (serious consequences, which consequences, awful consequences, and the consequences of sin), the D&C 9 times, and JS-History 3 times. It appears once in The American Revolution (the consequences of thy fall!) but not in the other pseudo books.

Lucy uses it over 20 times.

That’s interesting enough but even more interesting is the odd phrase in consequence. Joseph uses it twice in JS-History.

Joseph Smith—History 1:29 In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; 

46 and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. 

Every time consequence appears in the D&C, it appears as part of the phrase in consequence. Here are two examples.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:64 And even now, let him that goeth to the east teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:6 For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Selah J. Griffin and Newel Knight, in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in Thompson, and their rebellions.

[Note: the term which in verse 6 is supposedly evidence of archaic EME when it appears in the Book of Mormon because more modern usage is who or that.]

Here are some of the 26 instances of this phrase from Lucy’s History. (2 of these are from her father’s biography and 7 of these are from an affidavit by Hyrum Smith, showing that Joseph’s brother also used the phrase as well as Joseph’s grandfather.)

Lucy: In consequence of that which brother Page for the purpose of getting a room for the women and sick children; but returned unsuccessful. (That is lined out in the manuscript which suggests Lucy said it but then revised it–the type of automatic utterance of a phrase we expect in dictation. It’s the identical phrase that I bolded in D&C 42:64.

In consequence of which I took a severe cold

In consequence of which the young man returned without his grain

In consequence of which they were compelled to absent themselves from the city

And in consequence of the injuries which we had received at his hands, suspicion immediately fastened itself upon Joseph

But in consequence of his misfortunes, he was unable to do so, with the property which remained in his hands

Hyrum: That night was a commencement of a fit of sickness from which I have not wholy recovered unto this day, in consequence of my exposure to the inclemency of the weather. Our provision was fresh beef roasted in the fire on a stick; the army having no bread in consequence of mills to grind grain.

_____

That’s more than enough for now!

_____

*Lately there has been an effort to standardize a written form of Morisien. Plus, people use it in social media, so there is a recent written record of it. But for decades, the language remained unwritten. And Morisien is different from the creole spoken on neighboring islands such as La Reunion and the Seychelles.

Trying to “win” a strong city

I like this imagery a lot. It applies pretty well to discussions of Book of Mormon historicity, where people have different ideas.

The proverb can be taken at least two ways.

1. It could mean that if you want to “win” someone, don’t offend them. 

2. And it could mean that the type of people who get offended are like strong cities.
_____

The adjective “strong” denotes effective protection and defenses. A strong city, like the one in the image on the left here, is designed to prevent outsiders from entering.

As applied to a person, the metaphor of a strong city effectively describes people who get offended. They are inherently defensive, erecting walls against criticism and facts and arguments that contradict their comfortable beliefs.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like the M2C intellectuals I’ve been discussing on this blog…

Another term for such a city is a bubble. A bubble defined by people who get offended, or any of the synonyms: upset, hurt, wounded, injured, insulted, aggrieved, affronted, pained, displeased, distressed, disgruntled, put out, annoyed, angered, angry, cross, exasperated, indignant, irritated, vexed, piqued, irked, stung, galled, nettled, needled, peeved, ruffled, resentful, in a huff, huffy, in high dudgeon, fed up…
_____

I don’t understand the rationale for taking offense anyway. If someone says something that contradicts your self-image or your ideas, it’s either true or not. Either way, how could it be offensive?

Brigham Young reportedly said said that he who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool.

That’s advice that, had it been added to Proverbs and heeded by Bible readers, would have eliminated untold contention and conflicts in the world–and in the Church.
_____

In the context of academic or scholarly debates over facts and reason and rational argument, the whole idea of taking offense is bewildering. These are conceptual issues that represent different interpretations of reality. Anyone should be able to assess them analytically, particularly in an academic context.

And yet, since I’ve been looking at the issues I address in this blog, I’ve encountered plenty of intellectuals who seem more eager to take offense and claim to be insulted than they are to consider alternative perspectives and discuss them. 

Their utmost priority is censorship of ideas they disagree with.

Which reminds me of another verse from Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
_____

Maybe the strong city considers itself open-minded. The predominant feature of the city is that it is strong; i.e., safe. Not closed-minded, but simply secure.

As evidence, it points to the drawbridge that allows people to come and go. Of course, it’s a draw bridge; it can be drawn up to prevent people from entering if they don’t who fit into the city’s society, as determined by the city’s leaders.

IOW, only people and ideas that confirm the biases of the city’s leaders–in this case, the M2C citation cartel.
_____

Now, look at the proverb from the other perspective; i.e., if you want to “win” someone, don’t offend them. 

This is the ideal scenario. You share a new idea, perspective or set of facts with someone in a loving and respectful way and they promptly accept it. They collaborate with you and you adjust your own thinking as everyone works together to improve our mutual understanding. Everyone reaches consensus. Everyone aligns with the prophets. Everyone is happy and united and moving upward and onward.

Everything is awesome.

Oh, and your colleagues are thrilled to reject everything they’ve written and taught throughout their careers. They explain to donors that they’re reworking everything. They issue an apology to thousands of students for having misled them, albeit with the best of intentions.

And then you awaken from your dream and think, if not for human nature, this could really happen.