Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

Easy to resolve-follow the prophets

This book contains a nice summary of Book of Mormon geography issues that also reveals why the M2C scholars got so far off track.

James E. Smith wrote an article in the book titled “How Many Nephites?: The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography.”

You can read it here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=13

Smith does a great job summarizing the traditional interpretations, and in so doing, he shows why M2C is constructed on a faulty premise.

The entire M2C citation cartel relied on mistakes in Church history that led them astray, but they can get back on track if they’ll just follow the prophets and accept the New York Cumorah.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

Traditional Interpretations
From Joseph Smith’s day to now, there have been historical interpretations of the Book of Mormon that have tried to situate its peoples in actual historical settings. Almost as soon as the plates were out of the ground, it was assumed that the hill in New York where Joseph Smith found Moroni’s buried record was the ancient Hill Cumorah of Mormon’s day.17 

Note 17: Joseph Smith apparently never explicitly identified the hill in New York where he obtained the plates as ” Cumorah,” but others in the early Church certainly did make this inference. See Rex C. Reeve Jr. and Richard O. Cowan, “The Hill Called Cumorah,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History, New York, ed. Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992), 73—4.
This is the traditional M2C explanation, but everyone knows Joseph identified the hill as Cumorah even before he got the plates, according to his mother. The M2C scholars accept most of what Lucy Mack Smith wrote, except when she contradicts their theories. Plus, they ignore Letter VII, part of a series of 8 essays President Cowdery wrote with the assistance of Joseph Smith. Joseph had them copied into his own history and had them republished multiple times during his lifetime. 

Believers applied the term Lamanite to American Indians generally, implying that the Israelite Lehi was the ancestor of all Native Americans.18 

Note 18. For example, see Doctrine and Covenants 3:18—20; 19:27; 28:8; 54:8; 57.

This is a good example of how the M2C intellectuals frame the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants as the product of “believers,” not the Lord. We see this same approach on display in the Joseph Smith Papers and at the Church History Museum, as I discussed here: 
http://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2016/11/visit-to-church-history-museum.html There are some LDS who still believe the D&C consists of revelations from God, but D&C 28, 30 and 32 contradict the M2C narrative so the intellectuals frame them as “the beliefs of early Church members.” Notice that these revelations refer to Native American Indians living in New York, Ohio, and Missouri. They don’t state or imply that Lehi was the ancestor of all Native Americans. That’s a bogus claim made by M2C intellectuals to confuse members of the Church.


In addition, the Book of Mormon “land southward,” “land northward,” and “narrow neck of land” were interpreted to mean South America, North America, and the Isthmus of Darian (Panama), respectively, implying a hemispheric scope for Book of Mormon geography and history. 
The use of the passive voice here suggests this was a universal interpretation, but it was not. 

And amidst popular nineteenth-century speculations and so little scientific knowledge about the origin and fate of former New World civilizations like the Mound Builders and the Maya, believers at one time or another identified Book of Mormon peoples with most, if not all, ancient American civilizations and archaeological artifacts.19

19. For example, Charles Thompson, Evidences in Proof of the Book of Mormon (Batavia, N.Y.: Charles Thompson, 1841); and Orson Pratt, Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840); for a good example of numerous loose popular speculations about ancient American peoples around the time the Book of Mormon was published, see Josiah Priest, American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West . . . (Albany, N.Y.: Hoffman and White, 1837), and also William H. Stiebing Jr., Uncovering the Past: A History of Archaeology (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993), 167—97.
These are good examples, along with Benjamin Winchester’s work, which is usually overlooked. Priest’s book was cited in anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons. Priest focused on North American archaeology. 

Throughout the nineteenth century the most influential view of Book of Mormon history was expressed by Orson Pratt. In an 1840 British missionary tract, he wrote matter-of-factly that Lehi crossed the “Pacific Ocean and landed on the western coast of South America.”20 The Nephites colonized the “northern parts of South America” and expanded into North America as well, while the Lamanites possessed the “middle and southern parts” of South America. After Jesus visited the Nephites, “the Nephites and Lamanites were all converted unto the Lord, both in South and North America.”21 

The M2C intellectuals like to quote this passage to show how ignorant and speculative the early Saints were, but they never tell you that Joseph Smith specifically refuted this theory when he wrote the Wentworth letter. I’ve discussed that here: http://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2018/05/joseph-smith-edits-orson-pratt.html
Recall that the Wentworth letter was one of the few articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that Joseph Smith signed. Yet the M2C intellectuals ignore it and instead rely on anonymous articles instead, falsely attributing them to Joseph Smith. 


By the fourth century, the Nephites were in North America and the Lamanites in South America, with wars between them at the Isthmus of Darian. These wars pushed the Nephites northward until they were finally exterminated at a great battle in what is now New York State. Some thirty years after he first published them, Pratt was still preaching these views in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and they became incorporated into his footnotes for the 1879 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.22 

The M2C intellectuals never explain that these footnotes were expressly speculative (“it is believed”) for all locations except the hill Cumorah, which was identified unequivocally as being in New York.

Although the historical footnotes were not an official Church interpretation of the book, they represented and reinforced what had become the prevalent hemispheric view of Book of Mormon history.

This may have been the “prevalent” view, but it wasn’t Joseph’s, as he showed in the Wentworth letter. Joseph expressed frustration that his people would not accept his teachings, and this was one example. Even after he edited out Pratt’s hemispheric model from the Wentworth letter, and even after he had Letter VII republished so many times, his own followers ignored him. And that continues today with the M2C intellectuals and the employees at BYU, CES, and COB (the Church Office Building). Here’s what Joseph had to say about the futility of teaching the Saints: 

“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand.
“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.”
“Some people say I am a fallen Prophet, because I do not bring forth more of the word of the Lord. Why do I not do it? Are we able to receive it? No! not one in this room.” 
In the decade after the 1879 edition was published, there were lively discussions about Book of Mormon geography, but the Church did not offer any official interpretation.23 

23. For a useful summary of this topic and its history, see John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992).

You can read the entire book here: 
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/bookchapters/Geography_of_Book_of_Mormon_Events/Sorenson-%20The%20Geography%20of%20Book%20of%20Mormon%20Events,%20A%20Source%20Book,%20lo-res.pdf

Brother Sorenson’s spin is fascinating. It’s astonishing to read a “source book” that does not address Letter VII, the most detailed account of Book of Mormon geography ever produced by the First Presidency (written by President Cowdery with the assistance of President Joseph Smith and explicitly approved by President’s Rigdon and Williams, then published in the official Church newspaper, copied into Joseph’s personal history, and republished in at least 4 official Church publications). In the Appendix, p. 372, Brother Sorenson does note Letter VII and shows it was published in the Messenger and Advocate and republished in the Times and Seasons and Improvement Era, but he says nothing about Joseph’s personal history, the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, or the Prophet (the New York City newspaper edited by Joseph’s brother William). 

To his credit, Brother Sorenson cites D&C 128:20, which was published in the September 15, 1842, Times and Seasons, and writes, “It is clear that by the date of this revelation, Joseph Smith, and seemingly his readers generally, commonly recognized the term Cumorah to refer to the hill in New York.” But notice, he does not indicate that Joseph and his readers also understood that “hill in New York” to be the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. Letter VII had been republished in the Times and Seasons just a year previously.

Brother Sorenson also attributes the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles to John Taylor or Joseph Smith, neither of whom were working at the paper in September when the articles were published. 
However, in 1890 George Q. Cannon, then a counselor in the First Presidency, wrote in a Church periodical that the First Presidency would not issue an official statement on Book of Mormon geography since “the word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.”24 
In the Appendix of his source book, Brother Sorenson notes that Letter VII was republished in the Improvement Era in 1899, but here Smith does not point that out. Nor does he doesn’t mention that Pres. Cannon’s fellow counselor in the First Presidency, Joseph F. Smith, was the editor at the time. This is part of the consistent pattern from Church leaders; i.e., Cumorah is in New York, but we don’t know for sure where the other events took place. The M2C intellectuals always conflate these two separate teachings because they want members of the Church to believe the New York Cumorah was merely speculative opinions expressed by the prophets.

In preparing for the next edition of the Book of Mormon, a Church committee heard different views on Book of Mormon geography but apparently did not find any position so compelling as to warrant inclusion in the book.25 When the new edition of the Book of Mormon was published in 1920, it omitted historical and geographical footnotes—a practice that has continued since.
Although never adopted as an official Church interpretation of Book of Mormon history, the hemispheric interpretation seems to remain the most commonly held view among the general readership of the book. One implication of this view is that all pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas, including all of the populations of the Olmec, Maya, Inca, Aztec, and all other North and South American native populations, must have arisen from one or more of the three immigrant groups identified in the Book of Mormon. However, it is doubtful whether most Book of Mormon readers give careful thought to all of the historical and archaeological implications of this view, since the central religious message of the book in no way depends upon this historical interpretation.

I don’t know how to determine what most Church members believe, but it is obvious that the employees at BYU/CES/COB now adhere to M2C. 

Later in his article, Smith writes this:

John Sorenson has summarized more than fifty published statements on Book of Mormon geography from the 1830s to the present.34 He shows that until the early twentieth century, the traditional hemispheric interpretation dominated, but by the mid—twentieth century, most authors believed Book of Mormon history took place primarily within the more limited confines of Central America. Today almost all writers on Book of Mormon geography agree that Lehi’s landing place, the narrow neck of land, the lands northward and southward, and Mormon’s Hill Cumorah were situated somewhere in Central America. Recently Sorenson has proposed a fairly specific Mesoamerican setting that puts most Book of Mormon history in a geographic area reaching only a few hundred miles in each direction.35



The M2C argument is that most early LDS were wrong about the geography; i.e., the consensus was wrong. But no M2C intellectuals cite the consensus as a reason why everyone should accept it. I don’t know if they’re self-aware enough to see the inconsistency, but it doesn’t matter because LDS who know all the facts–including what the prophets have taught and what archaeology tells us about North America–reject the M2C consensus.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Noel Reynolds, John Sorenson, CES, and other thoughts

I posted some comments about two of the principal promoters of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that repudiates the prophets) here:

https://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2018/05/what-may-startle-somenoel-reynolds.html
_____

Speaking of that blog, I noticed that the most popular post there is the one from October 2016 about Mesomania and CES (the Church Educational System). Here’s the link:

http://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2016/10/mesomania-and-ces-church-educational.html

In that post, I offered a suggestion that still stands:

It would be very helpful to have the CES director do one or more of the following:

1. Announce a position of actual neutrality; i.e., declare as a matter of policy that there is no CES (or Church) position on Book of Mormon geography, and any CES instructor who says otherwise is violating policy.

2. Include Letter VII in CES materials, along with the statements of Joseph Fielding Smith and others.

3. Give students an overview of the basic issues involving Book of Mormon geography so they’re not blindsided by detractors. 
_____

Since I posted those comments, I have met more CES employees who still advocate M2C and who insist the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. I’ve even met some at the Hill Cumorah itself (the one in New York) who insist the “real Cumorah” is in Mexico.

I don’t know what it would take to have CES (and BYU) start teaching the youth what the prophets have taught instead of teaching them what the scholars teach–that the prophets are wrong–but I hope that day comes soon.
_____

A good place for CES to start would be teaching the youth about America’s Destiny. They could use President Romney’s talk, here:
In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation. …
As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11). …
As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, “How could it have happened?”
The answer came immediately as I remembered that some fifteen to twenty centuries before their destruction, as the small group of their ancestors was being divinely led from the tower of Babel, the Lord “would that they should come forth even unto [this] land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people….
This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’. …
The tragic fate of the Jaredite and the Nephite civilizations is proof positive that the Lord meant it when he said that this “is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.” (Ether 2:9.) …
Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come. The issue we face is clear and well defined. The choice is ours. The question is: Shall we of this dispensation repent and obey the laws of the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, or shall we continue to defy them until we ripen in iniquity?
That we will repent and obey and thereby qualify to receive the blessings promised to the righteous in this land, I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. Amen.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Bias in reading history

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of my book, Letter VII: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery Explain the Hill Cumorah.

President Cowdery wrote Letter VII with the assistance of Joseph Smith and published it in 1835. Joseph had it copied into his personal history and saw that it was republished in Church publications during his lifetime so every member of the Church could learn the truth.

Letter VII was published in New York City just two days after Joseph was murdered in Carthage.

Here is the text from Chapter 2:

Each of us views the world through our own filters. We have biases. Think about your own biases as you read this (or any other) book. Consider the biases of the author.
Here is my bias. You can agree or disagree, but you should know that this is the filter I use to assess the facts.
I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were credible and reliable witnesses. I think they were truthful. I don’t think they would say something was a fact unless they knew it was. (Later in this chapter I’ll explain how they knew Cumorah was in New York.)
Because Joseph and Oliver worked together on these letters, and because Joseph endorsed them repeatedly after they were published, I consider these letters, including Letter VII, as the testimony of two witnesses.
Their dual witness is the foundation of our beliefs about the restoration of Priesthood keys, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and more. Letter VII is no different.
My bias extends to all the prophets and apostles who have affirmed Letter VII’s teaching about Cumorah in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.
Scholars and educators who reject Letter VII have a different bias. Because they believe Joseph and Oliver were wrong, they think Letter VII deserves no deference. They think every prophet and apostle who has taught that Cumorah is in New York was perpetrating a false tradition.
Keep these distinct biases in mind as you read the rest of this book, as well as any book on the topic. Ask which bias more closely reflects your own bias.

Source: Letter VII

Uncategorized

They know, but the would not know

People wonder why the employees at BYU/CES/COB promote M2C when they know that the prophets have consistently and repeatedly taught that Cumorah is in New York.

First, we have to recognize that many of these employees don’t actually know what the prophets have taught. They’ve never heard of Letter VII. They don’t know about President Romney’s talk, or President Ivins’ talk, or what Elder Talmage wrote in Articles of Faith and Jesus the Christ, etc. The M2C intellectuals have successfully censored all of this, as I’ve shown on this blog. That continues today, as you’ll see if you write to Church leaders and get the standard misleading response from the Correlation Department that I discussed here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-correlation-department-promotes-m2c.html

Second, though, we have to recognize that many of these employees do know about the New York Cumorah, but they don’t want to know. 

Amulek expressed this type of thinking when he said:

“therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know.”

Alma 10:6.

These employees, including BYU professors and CES instructors who teach Book of Mormon classes (and those who prepare the curriculum) know perfectly well that the prophets have taught that Cumorah is in New York.

But, like Amulek, they don’t want to know what they know.

More importantly, they don’t want their students to know.

Despite their efforts to suppress the teachings of the prophets and to confuse members of the Church, these employees cannot prevail. More and more members of the Church (and nonmembers) are learning what the prophets have taught. Eventually, the BYU/CES/COB employees will come to acknowledge what the prophets have taught, and will come to accept the teachings of the prophets instead of continuing to teach that the prophets are wrong.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

A stumbling block

David Whitmer once wrote, “It is also a stumbling-block to those who desire to investigate as to the truth of the Book of Mormon, to see the believers in that book divided.”*

He was not referring to the divisions we face today, which boils down to prophets vs scholars regarding the Hill Cumorah. Nevertheless, this division is definitely a stumbling block.

The division consists of these two opposite teachings:

1. The prophets have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah (Moroni 6:6) is in New York.

2. The M2C intellectuals have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is not in New York and that the prophets are wrong. These M2C intellectuals have persuaded employees at BYU/CES and COB (the Church Office Building) to follow them instead of the prophets.

Hence, the division, which is a stumbling block to investigators (and members).

The damage caused by this stumbling block is evident all around us.

I say it’s time to eliminate the division by accepting and publicizing the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. This means the M2C scholars will have to conform their teachings to what the prophets have taught, but they should have been doing this all along.

I don’t think this is going to happen until the magnitude of the stumbling block created by the M2C scholars is so great that it is no longer tolerable.

_____
*David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 4.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

From Darkness Unto Light?

This week I was going to show how revisionist LDS historians are rewriting Church history. I have to go out of town unexpectedly and probably won’t get a chance to post the entire series until next week, but here’s an overview.

In 1834-5, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote a series of essays on Church history and doctrine (the first “gospel topics essays”) to refute an 1834 anti-Mormon book titled Mormonism Unvailed.

Now revisionist LDS historians are using Mormonism Unvailed to refute Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. 

Among other things, they are claiming that Joseph Smith didn’t really use the plates when he translated. Instead, according to these revisionists, the plates were left covered by a cloth throughout the translation process and Joseph merely read the words of a seer stone in the bottom of a hat.

In my view, this is a grave mistake.

Worse, the Church History Department is accepting their spin. The Correlation Department is implementing the revisionist history throughout the Church. Missionaries are being told to teach people what the revisionist historians are promoting. This is causing confusion and uncertainty.

I think this is a disaster for the same reasons Oliver and Joseph responded to the claims of Mormonism Unvailed in the first place, all the way back in 1834 and 1835.

I emphasize that these are merely my personal conclusions, based on my own research and careful reading of this book and the sources they cite and omit. None of this is personal, of course; we’re merely dealing with words on pages, not people. The authors are faithful LDS, careful scholars, and nice people. I just think this book seeks to confirm a bias about the plates and the translation process that also happens to support M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).
_____

In October 1834, Oliver Cowdery published the first of a series of eight essays he wrote with the assistance of Joseph Smith. I call these the first “gospel topics essays” because they address important issues involving Church history and doctrine that remain relevant today. They were originally published as letters to W.W. Phelps in the Church’s newspaper in Kirtland, Ohio, titled the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate.

For example, essay (letter) IV is available online here:
https://archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm01unse#page/76/mode/2up/search/Letter+IV

Soon after the eighth essay was published, President Frederick G. Williams, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, began copying them into Joseph’s personal history. You can see them in the Joseph Smith Papers today, such as essay IV here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/64

Also in October 1834, the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed was published in nearby Painesville, Ohio. You can see it here:
https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe

The influence of Mormonism Unvailed persisted for years. (Actually, with the book From Darkness Unto Light its influence has been rejuvenated.)

During Joseph’s lifetime, President Cowdery’s essays were republished in Church newspapers for everyone to read and re-read them. This includes the Times and Seasons, the Millennial Star, the Gospel Reflector, and The Prophet. The essays were cited by Church leaders in later years. Part of Letter I is canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. The essays were published again in Utah in the Improvement Era when Joseph F. Smith was the editor.

Yet these essays have never been published in the Ensign. They have been essentially forgotten and overlooked. Worse, they have been specifically repudiated by some revisionist historians and Book of Mormon scholars. M2C intellectuals at BYU/CES and the Correlation and History Departments even teach that President Cowdery was lying in Letter VII.

Today, it seems the revisionist historians rely more on Mormonism Unvailed than on President Cowdery’s letters.
_____

Richard L. Bushman’s Foreword foreshadows some of the problems I found in this book. Original in blue.
p. v. “Books like this one will bring Latter-day Saint readers up to date on the results of the latest historical research. While, like all histories, From Darkness unto Light is necessarily an interpretation, the authors base their story firmly on the original sources. They get down to what historians consider to be the bedrock of historical constructions.”
I found the historical references in this book very helpful. But, as we’ll see, there is a lot of interpretation in this book. I mean, a lot. The authors tell us what Joseph was thinking, what motivated him, etc. That’s fine when it is acknowledged, but several important and relevant original sources are omitted in the book. Why? The only reason I can think of is because these original sources contradict the authors’ interpretations. This is problematic.
“Joseph probably first used the stones set in spectacles that came with the plates, and then, for most of the translation period, substituted one of the stones he had found. Joseph put the seer stone in a hat to exclude the light and read off the translated text by looking in the stone. All the while, the plates lay wrapped in a cloth on the table. Apparently Joseph did not look at the plates through most of the translation.”
To persuade readers of this conclusion, the authors simply omit contrary evidence. That makes their conclusion appear obvious, but there’s another way to interpret the same evidence that is consistent with both the evidence they consider and the evidence they omit. From my perspective, all the evidence, when considered together, is consistent with the traditional narrative that Joseph did actually use the plates and sometimes used the hat during the final part of the translation process when he read what appeared on the stone. I disagree with the authors’ interpretation because I think Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates, as the scriptures state. 
“Failure to acknowledge these factual accounts, almost all of them in friendly sources, can devastate Latter-day Saints who run across them. Feeling that the Church has covered up the truth, they become disillusioned and even angry. This book is an attempt to repair the misconceptions so that the next generation of Latter-day Saints will be better informed.”
I agree with this concept, but in my view, the book covers up critical original sources that contradict the authors’ conclusions. Consequently, the book creates more misconceptions that will have far-reaching consequences now that the Church History Department has essentially adopted the authors’ conclusions.
“For years Mormon scholars simply disregarded critical sources, such as the affidavits concerning the Smith family in E..D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed… Everything has to be examined and evaluated. MacKay and Dirkmaat work on the principle that bias must be taken into account in analyzing any historical sources. The art of the historian is to extract useful information from original sources whether negative or positive.”
President Cowdery considered Mormonism Unvailed right when it was published. That’s why he emphasized he was using facts when he wrote the eight essays. Yet the authors ignore much of what President Cowdery wrote and instead rely more on Mormonism Unvailed, as I indicated at the outset of this post.
In upcoming posts we’ll look at passages in the book itself to see what sources the authors omitted and why.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Underlying cognitive dissonance

The other day I suggested that the greatest obstacle to reaching consensus among Mormons regarding Book of Mormon geography is sunk costs.
http://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2018/05/sunk-costs-and-m2c.html

I received a lot of positive comments on that post, but now that I think about it, the sunk costs are only a problem for a tiny minority of LDS; i.e., the employees at BYU/CES/COB who have been promoting and teaching M2C.

The rest of us haven’t invested nearly as much in M2C. Our “investment” consists of a naive belief in what the M2C intellectuals have taught. They’ve told us in Seminary, Institute, BYU, and Church media, manuals and visitors centers that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that there are two Cumorahs. We’ve accepted that because we (i) trusted these intellectuals and (ii) didn’t know what the prophets have taught.

Now, that is changing.

People throughout the Church are learning, for the first time, about Letter VII and the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets that reinforce Letter VII.

We might feel a little embarrassed that we believed M2C. Maybe we’ve taught it on our missions, in classes, to our children, etc. Maybe we think we’re “smart” because we believe the M2C intellectuals. Those are all sunk costs that make it a little difficult to change our minds.

When we learn how these M2C intellectuals have misled us by suppressing the teachings of the prophets, we develop cognitive dissonance that looks like this:

1. CES/BYU/COB employees have been teaching M2C and we trust these employees to teach the truth, so we accepted M2C.

2. We discover that the prophets have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is in New York, which contradicts M2C.

3. We discover these CES/BYU/COB employees knew all along but they have censored the teachings of the prophets because they think the prophets are wrong and they don’t want us to know that’s what they think.

4. We develop cognitive dissonance because we want to believe both the prophets and those CES/BYU/COB employees.

5. Now we have to figure out which of the things the CES/BYU/COB employees have taught are true and which are not. On the New York Cumorah, it’s easy: we believe the prophets instead of these employees. But now we have to start evaluating other topics.

Still, for most of us, these sunk costs and the cognitive dissonance they create do not threaten our careers or our status. They are manageable. We can change our minds when we learn what the prophets have taught. We can place the prophets above the intellectuals.

But we shouldn’t have to make that choice.
_____

The easy solution is for the CES/BYU/COB employees to align their teachings with the prophets. That would eliminate the cognitive dissonance and we’d all be on the same page. 

The entire Church would be aligned with the prophets.

That’s where we should be.
_____

But we won’t get there unless and until the CES/BYU/COB employees themselves change their minds about the New York Cumorah and align their theories with the teachings of the prophets.

And that will require them to overcome their own cognitive dissonance that was created by the massive costs they have sunk into M2C.

I’ll suggest ways to help them in my upcoming video series.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

No-wise from Book of Mormon Central (America)

Some readers contact me about the so-called “kno-whys” published by Book of Mormon Central (America) and republished by the rest of the M2C citation cartel. Some of these are well done. Others are pure M2C confirmation bias.

I call the latter “No-wise” because I think it is is inexcusable to characterize the teachings of the prophets as false opinions of men.

From time to time I comment on these “no-wise” on another blog. For example, see this one:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/05/no-wise-435.html

I keep hoping three things for Book of Mormon Central:

1. That they will stop repudiating the prophets about Cumorah; and
2. That they will recognize and respect the beliefs of those members of the Church who both (i) love the Book of Mormon and (ii) still believe what the prophets have taught about Cumorah; and
3. That they will continue doing good research on Book of Mormon topics that supports, instead of opposes, the teachings of the prophets. 

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

No-Wise #435 – Others’ influence

BookofMormonCentralAmerica (BOMCA) is on a roll. They’ve been putting out No-wise articles and videos that are transparently absurd lately. I trust most members of the Church (and all nonmembers) see the logical and factual fallacies in these No-wise, but I’m taking a moment to comment on the latest one because people are asking me about it.

Here is the link:
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/did-others-influence-book-of-mormon-peoples

I expect that long-time readers could point out the errors in this No-wise just as fast as I can, but I’ll go through it anyway for new readers.

This beautiful painting by James Fullmer depicts a scene that is anywhere but where the Book of Mormon took place. The Nephites built with earth and timber, not stone (except one time when the built walls of stone).

The land of Desolation was the Jaredite land of Moron (Ether 7:6). The Nephite records don’t describe the terrain, but the Jaredite refers to it in the context of a seashore and plains. The Book of Ether never mentions mountains in the New World. Instead, it mentions the “plains of Agosh” (Ether 14:15-16) and the “plains of Heshlon” which were near the “valley of Gilgal.” (Ether 13:28-29). This makes sense if we have a river valley, but not a valley surrounded by mountains.

The No-wise starts off with a problematic mismatch between the text and the art.

The Know

Modern anthropological research tells us that the New World was already extensively populated when the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites arrived. 
“Extensively populated” is a relative term. While Central America had fairly intensive populations with organized nations (kingdoms), the southeastern U.S. around 600 BC was populated by small groups of hunter-gatherers.  
This may lead readers to wonder why other societies are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon? The first thing to consider is that there are actually quite a few clues in the text which suggest that “others” were living in the regions where these colonies settled. The following list summarizes some of these clues:1 [“Some” implies there are lots more, but if there are additional clues, we’d like to know about them. This is a comprehensive list.]
  1. The reported size of early Nephite populations, the accounts of their warfare, and their unsanctioned polygamous marriages all indicate that they had an unbelievably high population growth rate.2 This suggests that outsiders mixed with and added to their population from the beginning. [There is no reported size of early Nephite populations. We make inferences from the text. One fallacy in this No-wise is the unstated assumption that Lehi’s original party was small. Nephi tells us only about his own family, but Lehi could have brought servants and other families with him the way the Jaredites did. That said, I do agree that outsiders joined Lehi’s group because Nephi says when he left, he took his family and “all those who would go with him.” But this indicates Nephi was the leader, not a newcomer into a well-established culture and nation, as he would have been in Mesoamerica. The text supports an encounter with unorganized groups of hunter-gatherers, not an encounter with the Mayan empire.] 
  2. In the book of Jarom, readers learn that the hunter-gatherer Lamanites had become “exceedingly more numerous” than the Nephites who cultivated the land (Jarom 1:6). This situation goes against the historical trend of higher population growth among agricultural societies. It seems that outsiders would have been necessary to swell the Lamanite population so disproportionately.3 [Here the No-wise describes the 600 BC era inhabitants of the southeastern U.S., not the Mayans of Mesoamerica. The No-wise is oblivious to the problem because of BOMCA’s confirmation bias, but readers who are not seeking to confirm M2C easily see how the description fits North America and not Mesoamerica.]
  3. Some researchers have felt that Jacob’s statements about Sherem, who “sought much opportunity” to speak with Jacob and who “had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people,” suggest that Sherem was an outsider to Nephite society (Jacob 7:3–4).4 This is because it makes little sense to emphasize that a community insider had a good grasp of their language or that he would have to seek out an encounter with Jacob. [Jacob 7:1 explains, “there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem.” You can search the phrase “came a man” and see that it is used in the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Moses not to signify an outsider but to signify a person who came forth; i.e., Luke 8:41 “And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a rule of the synagogue.” Having a “perfect knowledge of the language” does not state or imply that he was an outsider; the text specifically says he used this skill for “flattery, and much power of speech,” much like Alma the son of Alma (Mosiah 27:8) and those who sought the judgment seat in Alma 61:4. Sherem is a typical antiChrist, not an outsider from another culture.] 
  4. For several reasons, the Nephites’ quick ability to grow corn (maize) and raise flocks and herds seems unlikely unless they had obtained this knowledge from local natives.5 [There is never a suggestion in the text that the Nephites learned agriculture from locals; in fact, when Lehi landed, his people planted their own crops they had brought with them. They faced no interference from a nation-state or even competing people. We can’t say “corn” in the Book of Mormon can only mean maize. The Book of Mormon uses Biblical language; “corn” in the Bible is a translation of seven different Hebrew words and three different Greek words, all of which mean a type of food crop. But even if the Nephites grew corn, it isn’t mentioned until Mosiah, hundreds of years after Lehi landed, giving them plenty of time to learn about it.]
  5. The Mulekites’ language seems to have been “corrupted” too quickly for natural language evolution. This indicates that their language was being mixed with another language or languages from outside groups (Omni 1:17).6 [This claim misrepresents what Brother Sorenson actually wrote in the cited reference by implying the “outside groups” were indigenous Mayans. Instead, Sorenson noted the Mulekites could have either (i) adopted the language of the sailors who brought young Mulek to the promised land or (ii) “adopted a different, non-Hebrew language learned from some “other” people after arrival.” Either way, the people of Zarahemla did not adopt a Mayan language because they had no writing.] 
  6. The terms “Nephite” and “Lamanite” were broad enough to include a variety of ethnic and cultural sub-groups.7 Moreover, there are examples of Book of Mormon societies adopting the name of a host group upon joining them.7  [This practice is common to all human societies (even modern immigrants become “Americans”), but the practice contradicts M2C because the Nephites did not adopt the name of their purported host culture of Mayans.]
  7. The way that Jaredite culture and names were preserved among the Nephites shows how cultural influence from one group upon another goes unmentioned and unexplained in the text.9 [This is an important point for several reasons, one of which is the likelihood that the Nephites encountered other remnants of Jaredites besides Coriantumr. Moroni says he wrote about the people “in this north country” and Ether was writing about his own family line, which leaves open the possibility (I think likelihood) that the Jaredites spread throughout the continent.]
  8. The use of some terms or group designations, such as “Lamanitish servants” (Alma 17:26) or “Ishmaelitish women” (Alma 3:7), hints at affiliated groups of outsiders.10 If the social identity of the servants or women was one of the named groups in the Book of Mormon, then we would expect a straightforward label. Instead, the “ish” indicates that they may have been outsiders who were adopted into the Lamanite and Ishmaelite tribal groups. [This explanation is a possibility, but the suffix ‘ish in English means not only “like” or “similar” but also “belonging to” as in English, Danish, Spanish, etc. It’s certainly not evidence of the Nephites being absorbed by a larger Mayan culture.] 
  9. Several prophetic interpretations of Isaiah hint that the Nephites were concerned with the spiritual welfare of “others” in the land.11 [This is a possible interpretation that applies to indigenous people whether Lehi landed in the Southeastern U.S. or in Central America, but it could also simply refer to those who had not accepted the gospel or to the Gentiles in the future.]
These textual clues suggest that the Book of Mormon and the secular history of the Americas are actually in agreement about the presence of other peoples in the land. However, these clues still don’t explain why outsiders were never mentioned directly in the text. One likely answer can be found by comparing the Book of Mormon with other ancient American historical documents.
Anthropologist John L. Sorenson has noted that ancient Mesoamerican histories are similarly ethnocentric—meaning that, like the Book of Mormon, they focus almost solely on a particular society or lineage and that they exclude political, cultural, or religious information that isn’t directly relevant.12 With this ancient American context in place, the Book of Mormon’s lack of information about outside societies is perfectly understandable and even expected.
[Ethnocentric histories are hardly unique to Mesoamerican literature, but beyond that, another explanation is that the indigenous people Lehi’s group encountered were unsophisticated and unorganized. It seems far less plausible that the Nephites would avoid mentioning a vast, substantial and well-organized Mayan society than that they would avoid mentioning a few groups of hunter-gatherers in the southeastern U.S.]

The Why

These findings suggest that the Book of Mormon’s lack of detail about surrounding peoples and cultures is a subtle evidence of its historical authenticity. [Seriously? This is not an unreasonable argument if the Nephites encountered unsophisticated groups of hunter-gatherers such as those that lived in the Southeastern North America round 600 B.C., because such groups would have had little influence on the Nephite Hebrew culture. But this argument is a stretch even for confirmation bias when the claim is that the Nephites encountered Mayan culture in Mesoamerca without ever once mentioning stone temples, volcanoes, or the 3 Js; jade, jungles and jaguars. The absence of any indicia of Mayan culture beyond illusory “correspondences” is one of the strongest arguments against M2C.] 
It is also consistent with claims made by several Book of Mormon authors that they couldn’t record even a “hundredth part” of their peoples’ history.13 [Fair enough, but that 1% does describe features of North American culture dating to Book of Mormon time frames, including construction using earth and timber, not stone; Mosiah encountering large populations of illiterate people; living among plains instead of mountains; experiencing earthquakes and floods but not volcanoes; and building ships and shipping things. All of this with no mention of basic elements of Mesoamerican culture.]
They directly tell us that much more is going on in the background. Therefore we shouldn’t be surprised to discover that large amounts of historical or cultural information, such as descriptions of other societies, is missing from the text. As President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency stated in 1929, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”14
President Ivins is exactly correct here, just as he was the year before when he spoke about the Hill Cumorah in New York: Maybe someday we’ll have an actual Kno-Why on Cumorah that tells readers what President Ivins said about Cumorah. In the meantime, readers can look here: http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/03/conference-classics-president-anthony-w.html
The strong likelihood that others were in the land also has implications for DNA studies. The Church essay on this topic has explained,
When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift.15
In other words, when a small colony like the Jaredites, Lehites, or Mulekites mixes with a larger population, as we would expect them to have found in ancient America, then the DNA of the immigrant colonies would likely be lost to us within only a few generations. For this and other reasons, “DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”16 [This deserves more commentary than I have time to do here.]
Finally, the unmentioned presence of other peoples should help us remember why the Book of Mormon was written in the first place. Nephi explained, “I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred” (1 Nephi 19:6).17 Mormon similarly stated that his record was written so that a remnant of his people would “know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them” (Mormon 7:9).18 [This is important because who has the Lord designated as Lamanites? See D&C 28, 30, and 32 for the answer. Hint: he referred to the Indians living in New York and Ohio. Second hint: Joseph Smith replaced Orson Pratt’s long explanation of Central and South America with the direct, specific statement that “The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.” See https://mormonmesomania.blogspot.com/2018/05/joseph-smith-edits-orson-pratt.html]
In essence, the Book of Mormon is a spiritual and religious history. Its focus is on particular groups of people, their sacred revelations, and their miraculous experiences. It was never meant to be a cultural survey of the Nephites and Jaredites, or any of the others who interacted with them. Its narrow spiritual focus can help us remember to similarly prioritize spiritual things—especially the realty and teachings of Jesus Christ—in our own lives.
[This is axiomatic, but ignores the importance of the physical evidence that led President Cowdery to write Letter VII in the first place, and led Joseph Smith to make sure it was republished throughout the Church multiple times during his lifetime.]
As Elder Russell M. Nelson explained,
Some authors have focused upon [the Book of Mormon’s] stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.
Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.19

Further Reading

Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 91–128.
Brant A. Gardner, “The Other Stuff: Reading the Book of Mormon for Cultural Information,” FARMS Review 13, no. 2 (2001): 29–37.
John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 1–34.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

No-wise #429 – sunken cities

It’s time to take a look at another No-wise from our friends at Book of Mormon Central. You can see it here:
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/is-there-evidence-of-sunken-cities-in-ancient-america

Believers naturally seek actual or at least plausible evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon, just as critics seek to deny there is any actual or plausible evidence. This process has two elements: (i) what does the Book of Mormon say and (ii) what physical evidence matches up with the text.

The problem with M2C is the evidence simply doesn’t fit well. Whether it’s the plains of the Nephites that don’t exist in Mesoamerica (and which Joseph said were in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio anyway), or the dominant presence of volcanoes in Mesoamerica that are nowhere even mentioned in the text, the M2C intellectuals resort to re-translations of the text and illusory correspondences that are persuasive only to those who have already accepted M2C.

Plus, of course, M2C requires the repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the hill Cumorah in New York. Consequently, even a “win” for M2C is a “loss” for faith in the prophets.

By now, readers realize that many of the No-wise are pure confirmation bias. I ignore most of them, but this one caught my attention because of a reader and I’ll use it to illustrate the dangers of confirmation bias.

No-wise such as this make me wonder, does anyone really fall for these?

They start with a scripture: “Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof.”

3 Nephi 9:7

Then they cite a prior verse: “great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned” (3 Nephi 9:4). 

As “evidence” of such a sunken Nephite city, the No-wise refers to a site in Guatemala called Samabaj. Anciently, this was an island that flooded around 250-300 A.D. The site has around 30 buildings where around 150 people lived. Scientists say it was flooded due to volcanic action, which by itself should exclude it from consideration as a Book of Mormon site, since the text never once mentions volcanoes.

And yet, the M2C intellectuals claim this is evidence of a “great city Moroni.” They cite the infamous Sorenson book, Mormon’s Codex, and explain it in the notes.

Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 647. According to Sorenson, his proposed Book of Mormon geography “plausibly places the city of Jerusalem on the south shore of the Lake Atitlan. The near agreement in time between the flooding described in the Book of Mormon city and the rise of the lake waters over Samabaj, as well as the seemingly abrupt manner of that rise, is striking.” Although the timing of Samabaj’s flooding may be too late, Sorenson’s geographical correlation is still intriguing and deserves further consideration and exploration.

You have to appreciate this understatement: “Although the timing of Samabaj’s flooding may be too late…” Never do the M2C intellectuals allow facts to impede the illusory correspondences they find to support M2C.

There’s a delightful article published by BOMCA’s corporate owner, too:
http://www.bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/samabaj.pdf

If you’re not suffering from Mesomania (i.e., you’re not seeking to confirm your M2C bias), you realize that this one hamlet of Samabaj is no match at all for the list of cities that were sunk in the water and in the earth as described by 3 Nephi. None of those were described as island cities, either.
_____

You might wonder, if the Mesoamerican hamlet is not evidence to support the Book of Mormon, is there any evidence of sunken cities elsewhere?

Yes. Pretty much everywhere in the world.

Some years ago I went to Alexandria, Egypt, to scuba dive at Heracleion, a sunken city, but the water was too murky. (We went diving at Sharm el Sheikh instead, which was one of the best places I’ve been diving anywhere in the world.)

You can find lots of other examples on the Internet, but typically these are isolated cases. What we need is a set of conditions that would allow a series of cities of indeterminate size to be sunk by water and into the depths of the earth.

There is one place where that happens: along the Mississippi River.

Kaskaskia, 1993 flood

The first capital of Illinois was Kaskaskia. Prior to that, it was a major French colonial town, with 7,000 inhabitants.

Kaskaskia was located on the banks of the Mississippi River but the river shifted course and flooded the site. Now there are 14 residents there.

Flooding along the Mississippi is not unusual, of course. Even in modern times, despite the system of dams and locks, the river sometimes floods dramatically.

Changing course of the Mississippi

This graphic shows how the course of the river has changed over the last 1,000 years or so.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2011/05/11/map-of-the-ancient-mississippi/

Cities built along the shore anciently would have been flooded much like Kaskaskia.

Just like 3 Nephi describes.

True, verse 4 says the “great city Moroni” was “sunk in the depths of the sea.” The term “sea” in the Bible is a translation of a Hebrew word that refers to large bodies of water, including a mighty river. In the Bible, the term refers to the Nile. The lower Mississippi is even more mighty than the Nile, so it makes sense for the Nephites to refer to it as the west sea south.

Notice also that a city can be sunk under the water or under the earth along this river, just as the text describes. The Steamboat Arabia is an example of how a location can be “buried up in the depths of the earth,” as the text describes. See http://1856.com/. This steamboat was found 45 feet underneath a farm in Kansas, 1/2 mile from the current course of the river.

Are we going to find the buried Nephite cities someday? It seems unlikely because the Lord said he “buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.”

As we saw at the beginning of this post, people seek evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Along the Mississippi we find real-world, modern examples of exactly what the scriptures describe. It’s still possible, theoretically, that a city dating to 34 A.D. could be found buried underneath a farm some distance from the present course of the river.

The main point, though, is that the descriptions in 3 Nephi are not only plausible along the Mississippi River, but are demonstrable using even contemporary experience. Until we have LiDAR able to penetrate 45 feet or more it’s unlikely we’d ever find these sunken cities, but Kaskaskia and the Steamboat Arabia show how the events described in 3 Nephi make sense.

Source: About Central America