Author: Jonathan Neville

The saga of Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty is far more meaningful when we consider it taking place in the latter-day land of liberty.

Alma 46:12 explains that “he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.


13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—”
_____

Certain LDS intellectuals don’t think the Book of Mormon took place in North America because they think such an idea stems from nationalism.

They want believers in the Book of Mormon to think Captain Moroni was operating in the jungles of Central America, or in the imaginary lands currently being taught by the abstract maps at BYU/CES. According to the intellectuals who teach M2C, anyone who believes Cumorah is in New York is a nationalist.

Even if they live in another country.

And yet, most if not all of these intellectuals choose to live in the U.S.
_____

This 4th of July, think about the liberties you enjoy wherever you live in the world. Then remember what the Lord said about the U.S. Constitution:

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

When we analyze what these M2C intellectuals are saying, we realize why so few people in the world take the Book of Mormon seriously. 

M2C is a major impediment to missionary and reactivation work. We can remove the impediment and give people everywhere a fair chance to accept the Book of Mormon, but only if we recognize what these M2C intellectuals are doing.

M2C scholars have a list of justifications for their repudiation of the prophets.

For example, I’ve addressed a recent list of justifications here: http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-case-for-mesoamerica.html

Among the rationalizations are these “correspondences” between ancient Mayan civilization and the Book of Mormon:

1. Cities.
2. Flags, banners, etc.
3. Volcanoes.
4. Cutting off arms.
5. “Requirements” from the text, such as these from BMAF/Book of Mormon Central America:
http://bmaf.org/about/why_mesoamerica

BMAF supports a Mesoamerican context for the major Book of Mormon sites. Other locations may meet some of the following criteria, but only Mesoamerica meets all these elements required by the book itself.  This list of criteria is not a cafeteria list.  Any Book of Mormon lands proposal must be able to demonstrate all.

  A Narrow Neck of land and 4 seas (east, west, north, and south)
  A major river running south to north from a narrow strip of wilderness
  A high civilization with cities, kings, artisans, military, and priests
  An agricultural base large enough to support several millions of people
  A highly literate (written language) society with scribes as important officers
  Functional calendar and dating systems
  A merchant class using weights and measures
  Engineers to build houses, temples, towers, and highways using cement
  Highly skilled craftsmen working with precious metals and stonework
  A warrior society involved in large battles using trained soldiers and sophisticated fortifications
  Legends of a white, bearded God

Most people outside the M2C bubble easily recognize the circular reasoning here. The M2C intellectuals concoct a set of “criteria” based on Mesoamerica, not the text, and then transform these “criteria” into requirements. Let’s look at each one, starting with the BMAF list.
_____

The “narrow neck of land” is mentioned exactly once, in Ether 10:20. It’s a description of the location of a great Jaredite city. But M2C conflates this passage with other passages that use different terms.

Nowhere does the text say “a major river” runs south to north. That said, there is a north-flowing river right in North America that M2C intellectuals don’t know about.

A “high civilization” is ubiquitous in human history, including in North America.

The Book of Mormon never claims there were millions of Nephites. The largest enumerated army was only 42,000 (Mormon 2:9), and this was after the Nephites had been driven out of their lands and were collected together in one body. It was a time of blood and carnage, a time for “all hands on deck.” Plus, we can look at the Bible for comparison. The Book of Mormon refers to a few places as “great cities.” One is Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4; 2:13; 10:3; 11:13), which had a population of only around 25,000 when Lehi lived there. There is the “great city” Zarahemla. There is the great city of Ammonihah (Alma 16:9). There is Amulon’s great city also called Jerusalem (Alma 21:2). And there are unnamed “great cities” round about (Helaman 7:22). These suggest a Nephite population of a couple of hundred thousand at most. Of course, the Nephite population could have been much larger, but there’s nothing in the text that requires or even implies that. (Ether 15:2, which refers to two millions of mighty men who had already being slain, probably refers to the entire history of Coriantumr’s people because Coriantumr was reflecting on what Ether had told him.)

The written language was expressly not Mayan, and from Enos through Moroni, the prophets explained that the Lamanites sought to destroy the Nephite records. That’s why Mormon had to hide them in the depository in the hill Cumorah. Any society with abundant ancient written records cannot, by definition, be a Nephite society.

Calendars and dating systems are ubiquitous in human society. In North America, ancient people created earthworks that aligned with celestial events for this purpose.

Systems of weights and measures are ubiquitous among humans.

Cement is mentioned only briefly in Helaman 3 because the Nephites preferred to build with wood and earth. The text never mentions building with stone and cement, only with wood and cement. The only known Nephite cement is the material Moroni used to construct the stone box on the hill Cumorah in western New York.

Most human societies feature works of precious metal and stone, including those in North America.

Warfare and fortifications are ubiquitous among human societies, including in North America.

Legends of a white, bearded God… Seriously?
_____

Now let’s look at the other items.

1. Cities. The Book of Mormon refers to cities, villages and towns. What’s the distinction among these terms?

When we assess Book of Mormon terminology, we look at the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary and the usage in the King James Bible (references at the end of this post).

A “city” is a collection of buildings protected by a wall. (Towns and villages lacked walls.) In England, it was a community that had a bishop and a cathedral. This definition is interesting because there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla, which the text says are “many churches” (Mosiah 25:22-23). Does that mean that “many cities” are actually “seven cities” or an equally small number? In Alma 51:26, a list of six cities is called “many cities.”

We can’t know for sure what the Nephites considered a city, or how many cities there were. But we do know that the indigenous people in North America built walls of wood and earth around their communities, which qualifies as cities, and there were many of these.

2. Flags, banners, etc. The Book of Mormon refers to the title of liberty, and Mayan culture also had flags or banners. But what human societies does not have flags or banners?

3. Volcanoes. M2C intellectuals insist that the destruction in 3 Nephi could only have been caused by volcanoes, but the text never mentions volcanoes. In reality, the destruction could only have been caused in Mesoamerica by volcanoes, but in North America, the destruction not only theoretically could have been caused by earthquakes; we have actual recorded accounts of such destruction taking place in the Mississippi river valley.

4. Cutting off arms. There are Mayan descriptions of cutting off arms. But this is a widespread practice in human societies. Trophy taking is ubiquitous among human societies. It’s an ancient custom. Arm-taking specifically has been found in France (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/pit-amputated-arms-france-6000-years-ago-suggest-war-and-trophy-taking-020651), among the Timucua Indians of Florida, etc. Herodotus described the practice among the Scythians. It’s part of the mythology of the Ossetians (Caucasus mountains). It still occurs today among tribal wars in Africa. In ancient Egypt, they cut off arms to prove to the Pharoah how many enemies they killed, until the Pharoah ordered them to produce genitals to get a more accurate count (I’ve seen the stone engraving of amputated genitals near Karnak). Even in the Afghan war, the U.S. military collected body parts to get counts of the enemy dead. They Cheyenne Indians identified themselves with a sign meaning “cut arms,” referring to a practice of cutting strips of skin from their arms as a sacrifice, which has ancient origins. In the Book of Mormon there is only one account, and it was not even part of a war; Ammon was “disarming” his enemies because that was the only way to stop them. We don’t have any accounts of Nephites or Lamanites severing and collecting arms as war trophies. But we do have scalping (Alma 44) specifically as a war trophy, a common practice among the North American Indians that the Lord designated as Lamanites.

You can do the same analysis for any of the “correspondences” cited by M2C intellectuals.

This is not to show that the M2C intellectuals are “wrong.”

The point is, these “correspondences” are illusory, and thus not an adequate justification for repudiating the prophets about the New York Cumorah.
_____

Webster’s:

Village – a small assemblage of houses, less than a town or city

My answer is usually this: “Eventually the right thing happens.”

Elder Packer liked to say that the Church moves at two speeds: slowly, and not at all. Yet I’m happy to give kudos to the Church History Museum for correcting a significant problem.

In this case, the right thing has happened. So be of good cheer. Eventually the Church will purge the M2C nonsense and get back to the teachings of the prophets.
_____

New Exhibit showing “Indian Mission” with Chief Anderson

A while back, I reported on a misleading display in the Church History Museum about the “Indian Mission.”

See here:
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/01/early-church-members-joseph-smith.html
and here:
http://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2016/11/visit-to-church-history-museum.html

I told some of the docents about the problem. I submitted a comment to the Museum. I blogged about it and showed this in several presentations.

Others, too, have commented about the display.

Yesterday I revisited the museum. I’m happy to say they have corrected the exhibit.

I’m not saying I had anything to do with it, but whatever motivated the change, we can be grateful. No longer will visitors to the Church History Museum be misinformed about Church history on this point.

The old sign told visitors that “Early Church members believed that these Indians were descendants of Israelites who were known as Lamanites in the Book of Mormon.”

The new sign deletes the rhetoric about what “early Church members” believed and instead declares this:

In the autumn of 1830 in New York, Joseph Smith received three revelations in which the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Jr., Parley P. Pratt, and Ziba Peterson to preach to the Lamanites, one of three groups of people described in the Book of Mormon. Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

Consequently, in late 1830, Oliver Cowdery and his companions preached to Seneca Indians in New York and Huron Indians in Ohio. Both nations expressed some interest in the Book of Mormon, which the missionaries shared with them as a record of their forefathers.

Oliver, Parley, and a new convert, Frederick G. Williams, journeyed into Indian Territory (present-day Kansas and Oklahoma), where the Lenape (Delaware) and Shawnee Nations showed great interest in the Book of Mormon.

This description is close to perfect. (I would have had the term “Lamanites” included in parentheses after the term “Indian” in the heading, and I would have quoted D&C 28, 30 and 32. But this is a definite step away from the M2C dogma.)

And it’s cool they accompanied the display with an image of Lenape chief William Anderson.
_____

Now, if we could just get the Joseph Smith Papers editors to delete the misleading rhetoric on their web page, we would really be making progress.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/lamanites

Notice how the summary still says “Early church members viewed contemporary American Indian tribes as the descendants of the Lamanites.”

This is the type of rhetoric we expect from the Correlation Department. Maybe the Church History Museum is not under the thumb of the Correlation Department so the Museum can tell the truth. Or maybe this change slipped past the M2C censors at the Correlation Department.

Either way, I suspect the Correlation Department didn’t catch this change.

Well done, Church History Museum!
_____

I’m very happy to see this change!

Old Exhibit showing “Indian Mission” with Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt

New Exhibit showing “Indian Mission” with Chief Anderson

Side panel of new exhibit. Notice how the images of Chief Anderson and Cowdery/Pratt have been swapped.

Old display that claimed “early Church members” believed the Indians were Lamanites

New display that explains these Indians are Lamanites.

Brother John W. (Jack) Welch is the Chairman of Book of Mormon Central. He’s also a lawyer, so he’d be the natural one to make this explanation. But there are plenty of other lawyers who promote M2C.

Come to think of it, Book of Mormon Central is only one part of the citation cartel. The entire cartel is going to need a platoon of lawyers to explain to the prophets how they were wrong.

Here’s how I envision that happening.

“But you were all ignorant speculators who misled the Church,” the lawyer insists.

This graphic shows the lawyer arguing the M2C case to a panel of the prophets, sitting as Supreme Court judges.

I could only fit a few of the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah, but there’s no need to show all of them. They have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is in New York. No prophet has disagreed or even questioned their teaching.

Only the M2C intellectuals have.

I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer who has to try to persuade the prophets they were wrong.

Especially since the M2C case is based on illusory correspondences and strained interpretations of the text.
_____

I don’t think these judges will rule in favor of Book of Mormon Central, but apparently a lot of employees at BYU/CES/COB do. The citation cartel is so confident that they censor any contrary views, especially the views of those who believe the prophets.

Book of Mormon Central will also answer to the thousands of youth in the Church whom they have taught to disbelieve the prophets, but that crowd is much, much too large to depict on the bench.
_____

Evidence: fantasy map used to repudiate the prophets, taught by BYU/CES

Evidence: fantasy map used to repudiate the prophets, taught by BYU Studies, edited by Jack Welch

Take a look at all the members of the M2C citation cartel who are collaborating to teach the youth in the Church that the prophets are wrong:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/directory

This isn’t even a full list of the citation cartel. You can see more of them here:

http://interpreterfoundation.org/foundation/

and here:

https://ldsmag.com/columnists/

The M2C lawyer is going to be quite busy, no doubt. 

Beliefs are impervious to facts

I’ve spent several years trying to achieve a consensus about the geography and historicity of the Book of Mormon. Others have done so as well.

I’ve concluded that there can be no consensus among members of the Church about Book of Mormon geography because there are completely different and incompatible approaches to the issue.

Confirmation bias makes beliefs so much stronger than facts that facts have become irrelevant.

Having once been a promoter of M2C, I understand the mindset. But I don’t understand the intransigence of the intellectuals who continue to promote it.
_____

Everyone agrees with two principles.

1. All participants believe in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon; i.e., it’s a real history of real people that leads people to Christ.

2. All participants agree that physical evidence is important for many people. Without it, the Book of Mormon cannot achieve its full potential. All agree that the text (actually, their respective interpretations of the text) is consistent with with relevant archaeology, anthropology, geography, geology, etc. IOW, each individual and group thinks these sciences support his/her/their respective interpretations of the text.

So why is a consensus impossible?

There are two categories of differences. One category could lead to consensus, but the other is irreconcilable.

1. Because the interpretation of the text is interconnected with the relevant sciences, each element drives the other. Thus, each side interprets the text and the science in a manner that confirms its respective biases. This leads to fundamental differences that could still be reconciled by an open, honest and serious examination and recognition of the respective biases.

2. However, there is an irreconcilable difference. One side accepts the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, but the other side rejects these teachings, claiming the prophets were wrong. The New York Cumorah is incompatible with theories that put Cumorah elsewhere, so this is a fundamental difference that cannot be reconciled.
_____

You see what you’re looking for: the old woman and the young woman in the same image

Here’s the amazing realization I’ve had: the first difference (interpretation) drives the second difference (acceptance of prophets)–and the first difference is really an illusion.

IOW, once both sides recognize that they are engaged in confirmation bias, they can set aside their differences about interpretation of the text and about the evidence that drives those interpretations. Then everyone can focus first on the question of whether or not to accept the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Another way to say it is this: there are textual interpretations and evidence to support the teachings of the prophets, and Also textual interpretations and evidence to repudiate the prophets. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a delusional state of confirmation bias.

That’s why the first decision must be whether or not to accept the prophets.

No longer can we pretend the prophets have not taught that Cumorah is in New York.

We each must make a personal decision whether to accept or reject the prophets. 

Those who try to split the difference by resorting to the “it’s their opinion” rationalization are not only rejecting the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah, but they are also rejecting the prophets who have condemned those who use that very rationalization.

There is no law against repudiating the prophets.

But it’s dishonest to repudiate the prophets while pretending to believe the prophets. 

Especially when you are employed by BYU/CES and you hypocritically teach your students to believe the prophets.
_____

Because I’m one who accepts the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, it may seem as though I have a thumb on the scale. But those who know me and have read my work know that I treat confirmation bias the same way whether I am assessing confirmation bias on my part or on the part of others.

I freely admit that I seek to confirm my bias that the prophets are right, but I also have a bias for accuracy, facts and reality.

With that in mind, we can all recognize that, at its core, the purpose of M2C is to confirm its bias that the prophets are wrong.

We’ve seen that, by its own admission, the purpose of M2C is not to seek the truth. 

I went through that analysis here: http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/06/george-orwells-1984-thrives-at-bomc.html

I don’t think M2C started with that objective. It actually started with the same objective I have; i.e., to confirm its bias that the prophets were correct. But in the case of M2C, the assumption was that the anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons were correct. Those articles claimed the Book of Mormon took place in Central America, although everyone in the Church at the time also knew that Joseph and Oliver consistently taught Cumorah was in New York.

Preferring the anonymous articles over the teachings of the First Presidency and members of the Twelve, the M2C advocates calculated that the distances described in the text were too small to accommodate the New York Cumorah. From there, they concluded the prophets were merely expressing their opinions, speaking from their ignorance and speculation.

Therefore, according to the M2C intellectuals, the prophets were wrong.

The arguments go like this:

1. The prophets who have taught that Cumorah is in New York are wrong.

2. Because the prophets are wrong, we have to look at scholarly interpretations of the text as the sole guide for determining the geography.

BYU fantasy map that repudiates the prophets

3. The Book of Mormon took place in a limited area because the distances are described in terms of a few days of travel on foot.

4. The only area that “fits” the text is Mesoamerica, so the real Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is located in Southern Mexico. The Church still calls the New York hill “Cumorah,” but that’s based on a false tradition. Hence, there are “two Cumorahs.” The “real” Cumorah is in Mexico, and the “false” Cumorah is in New York.

5. The evidence of M2C consists of a series of correspondences between the M2C interpretations of the text and the geography, archaeology, anthropology and geology of Mesoamerica.
_____

That all sounds great, doesn’t it? 

Once you rationalize away the teachings of the prophets, you can engage in normal academic inquiry. 

Well, not really.

To people outside the citation cartel, it is apparent that every one of these “correspondences” is pure confirmation bias, as I’ll show in future posts. I think once the M2C advocates acknowledge that their M2C correspondences might be illusory, they will consider re-evaluating their original premise.

If they were actually engaged in normal academic inquiry, they would have done this a long time ago. They would welcome contrary views. They would participate in a robust debate and discussion. They would welcome challenges to M2C. They would engage in actual peer review.

But they don’t.

Instead, the M2C citation cartel follows the classic definition of a cult, as I’ll explain in upcoming posts.

That’s why a consensus is impossible, at least for now.
_____

The reason I retain some hope is that every participant in the citation cartel whom I’ve met is a wonderful person. I think it’s still possible that they can set aside their bias against the prophets and take a fresh look.

At that point, they will examine the teachings of the prophets again and see whether a new bias–one that affirms the teachings of the prophets–can be confirmed by the evidence and by textual interpretation.
_____

It’s not an easy thing to persuade LDS people to reject the prophets. We’re amazed at how effective the M2C citation cartel has been at accomplishing its goal to persuade the people that the prophets are wrong.

But those of us who have been around for a while recognize the tactics. George Orwell described them in his book, 1984. We all read his book in high school and college so we could recognize how Newspeak works.

In the last few years, I’ve found that my college students are largely unaware of 1984. I infer that high schools have stopped teaching it.

Students have no idea what Newspeak is.

I think there has been a shift away from teaching Newspeak toward using Newspeak to indoctrinate students. 

Certainly we see these tactics at work in the media.

And we see the same tactics being employed by Book of Mormon Central America as it promotes the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).
_____

I’ve only met a few of the advisers, volunteers and employees at Book of Mormon Central America. All of them are outstanding individuals, smart, diligent and faithful. Many of them are BYU students or recent graduates of BYU. Others are BYU professors and employees of CES and COB. You can see them here:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/directory

What puzzles us is how they can participate in an organization that is based on rejecting the prophets.

How is it possible?

Here’s the key: some of these people are using Newspeak while others are being duped by Newspeak. I suspect it’s not the younger people who are using Newspeak because most of them haven’t heard of it.

If the good people at Book of Mormon Central America realized what’s going on, they would repudiate the M2C intellectuals instead of the prophets.

To that end, let’s look at a few examples.
_____

First, notice the Orwellian logic as Book of Mormon Central America explains its organization:

The legal organization behind Book of Mormon Central is the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, Inc., a 501 (c) 3 non-profit public charity chartered in the state of Utah in 2004.

But when you go to the BMAF website, you see this:

This past year BMAF was acquired by Book of Mormon Central and the newsletters discontinued. 

BMAF claims it was “acquired” by Book of Mormon Central America, but Book of Mormon Central America says BMAF is the legal organization “behind” it.

George Orwell would be proud.

That’s a minor detail, but it exemplifies the way these people use Newspeak. When you cut through it, Book of Mormon Central America is owned by BMAF.
_____

The next example of Orwellian tactics is the “Mission Statement” of Book of Mormon Central America, which you can read here:

Our Mission Statement

1. Build faith in Jesus Christ
2. Learn and cherish pure doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-4)
3. “Remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon” (D&C 84:57)
4. Access scholarly evidence from BMC to answer hard questions about the Book of Mormon, including its origins—so that they “may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5)

This is a laudable set of goals, shared by all faithful LDS. They are inpirational and even quote scriptures!

These goals are designed to dupe participants into thinking they are engaged in the pursuit of truth.

But the last one is pure Newspeak, because you have to look at the mission statement of the corporate owner to understand what is meant by “scholarly evidence.”
_____

Book of Mormon Central America exists to promote M2C.

And we’ve seen that, by its own admission, the purpose of M2C is not to seek the truth. 

Instead, the purpose is set out in the Mission Statement of BMAF, the corporate owner of Book of Mormon Central:

MISSION STATEMENT (http://bmaf.org/about/mission_statement)

The Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum (BMAF) is a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization dedicated as an open forum for presentation, dissemination, and discussion of research and evidences regarding Book of Mormon archaeology, anthropology, geography and culture within a Mesoamerican context.  

[Now you see why they censor and attack anyone who still believes the prophets. As BYU Professor John Sorenson explained in Mormon’s Codex (Deseret Book, 2015), p. 688, “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. Hundreds of thousands of Nephites traipsing across the Mississippi Valley to New York, pursued (why?) by hundreds of thousands of Lamanites, is a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.”

Getting back to the M2C mission statement:

Our goals are 
(1) to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex,
(2) to correlate and publish works of LDS and CofC scholars, 
(3) to help promote unity and cooperation among scholars and students of the Book of Mormon, and 
(4) to provide a forum where responsible scholars can present current ideas and discoveries.

This reads like something Big Brother would announce in Orwell’s 1984. It’s pure Newspeak.

M2C seeks to “help promote unity and cooperation” by suppressing, censoring, and ridiculing those who still believe the prophets.

M2C defines “responsible scholars” as those who share the goal of framing the Book of Mormon “within a Mesoamerican context.”

M2C = plusgood.
M2C = goodthink.
The teachings of the prophets = crimethink.
The M2C citation cartel = thinkpol

Using good Newspeak, Book of Mormon Central America acts as recdep* by creating an “archive” that aims to promote and legitimize M2C.

The fundamental premise of M2C is that the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. Book of Mormon Central America uses all kinds of sophistry to persuade faithful LDS to repudiate the prophets. There are examples of Newspeak throughout the “No-wise” and other articles and videos.

Fortunately, in the age of the Internet, Newspeak can be exposed. I’ve only given a few examples here. With a little training in Newspeak awareness, every LDS can learn to spot Newspeak.

Eventually M2C will be exposed for what it is, and then we can all reach “unity and cooperation” by accepting the teachings of the prophets. 
_____

[BTW, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the Church History Department, aka recdep, is implementing M2C by rewriting Church history to delete any references to the New York Cumorah. E.g., Letter VII = unperson. See http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/06/june-2018-ensign-unity-but-why-is.html]
_____

*In 1984, recdep is the Records Department where Winston Smith works. This is a division of the Ministry of Truth that “rectifies” records.]

1. The prophets are wrong.

Ask any promoter of M2C and they will tell you the prophets have been wrong about the New York Cumorah.

The core group of M2C intellectuals is at BYU-Provo. Some have retired, others are about to, but they have plenty of followers among the younger faculty, so the repudiation of the prophets will continue for the foreseeable future–unless the students (and parents) reject what these intellectuals are teaching.
_____

For a while now, I’ve pointed out that President Benson warned us about what these BYU intellectuals are doing.

“The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.” 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

Notice, I’ve been citing the lesson manual. But actually, President Benson gave this address at BYU.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

This was a Devotional Address on Feb. 25, 1980. President Benson was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.

I was at BYU then. I remember how many professors were telling us that the prophets were expressing their own opinions, and I remember the reaction to President Benson’s was not exactly warm. That’s another topic, but my point here is that President Benson was trying to fix BYU.

If anything, I think today’s faculty is even worse when it comes to following the prophets than the faculty I knew back then.

Of the fourteen fundamentals President Benson articulated, the eleventh is the one BYU faculty and students should ponder:

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them; otherwise, the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet.

This was no isolated BYU devotional that we can all forget about. As I’ve pointed out, it’s in the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson.

In June 1981, President Benson’s talk was published as the First Presidency Message in the Liahona.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

(So far as I can tell, this was the only time a First Presidency message was not written by a member of the First Presidency, although President Benson became President of the Church in November, 1985.)

In the October 2010 General Conference, President Benson’s talk was cited twice.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/11/saturday-afternoon-session/our-very-survival?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/11/saturday-morning-session/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng
_____

In 1980, M2C was just getting started. True, President Joseph Fielding Smith had previously objected to the two-Cumorahs theory, accurately warning that it would cause members of the Church to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. That has played out even worse than President Smith could have imagined.

Now our own visitors centers are teaching M2C!

But had the BYU faculty (and students such as myself) heeded President Benson’s 1980 warning, M2C would have been halted before David Palmer published In Search of Cumorah, before John Sorenson published An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, and before the Correlation Department began enforcing M2C throughout the Church.

Today, had we heeded President Benson, the Church would be united at least about the New York Cumorah, just as it was when Joseph Smith was alive.

But instead, the M2C intellectuals at BYU rejected President Benson, just as they rejected all the prophets who taught the New York Cumorah.

And that continues today, with devastating consequences.
_____

These M2C intellectuals tell their students that the prophets have been merely expressing their opinions.

No, that’s too mild. Let’s be clear.

BYU fantasy map that teaches LDS students to disbelieve the prophets

The premise of M2C is that the prophets who have taught that Cumorah is in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, have all been ignorant speculators who misled the Church by expressing their personal (and erroneous) opinions.

I won’t name the M2C intellectuals here, but if you’ve taken a Book of Mormon class at BYU in recent years, you’ve met some of them. You know them because they teach students a fantasy map that teaches the prophets are wrong. 
_____

I’ll accept blame, myself. When I was a BYU student, I bought into the narrative that our professors were smarter than the prophets. It’s not just BYU geography, of course; the intellectuals assert superiority over the prophets on lots of topics.

I don’t remember knowing about Letter VII when I was a BYU student. I think if I had, though, I might have bought into the narrative that our M2C intellectuals were smarter than the prophets.

Only now, decades later, do I realize how completely wrong these M2C intellectuals are.

I wish I had heeded President Benson’s warning all along.

I hope that this blog post might help some students (and maybe some BYU faculty) avoid the mistake I made way back in 1980.