Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

The "origin" of the Mesoamerican model

[Note: while I’m out of the country, we’re re-posting the most popular posts from the last few years]

BOMAF published an article by Edwin M. Woolley that explains the “origin” of the Mesoamerican model.

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/origin_mesoamerican_model__woolley

This article provides a useful service. It exposes the Mesoamerican model for what it is; i.e., an effort to vindicate what some people think Joseph Smith wrote in the Times and Seasons. Take away those articles and the Mesoamerican model collapses.

Now that we know who wrote the Times and Seasons articles, and why, there’s no basis for continuing to speculate that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica.

Here are the main points, along with my comments.

1. Joseph Shares Information Concerning the Nephites with His Family

Woolley quotes from Lucy Mack Smith’s History of Joseph Smith, emphasizing that Joseph was well acquainted with the Book of Mormon peoples. This is a little ironic since the President of the BOMAF thinks Joseph didn’t know much about the Book of Mormon, but presumably most believing LDS agree that Joseph did know quite a bit about the civilization described in the book.

2. Joseph Writes Four Articles Identifying Central America as the Book of Mormon Lands

This point attributes the Times and Seasons articles directly to Joseph Smith, even calling one of them a “revelatory statement.” Since we now know that Joseph didn’t write those articles (see The Lost City of Zarahemla for the details), Woolley’s argument here is an admirable effort, but outdated. Hopefully he will revise this in light of new evidence.

3. A Historical Vignette

This point discusses Joseph’s whereabouts and activities in Nauvoo during the summer of 1842. Despite purportedly detailed research, Woolley can’t find a single reference to Joseph Smith editing, publishing, or even writing for the Times and Seasons during this period, apart from the letters he sent to the actual editor (D&C 127 and 128). Worse, Woolley understandably misses the point that Joseph didn’t write the articles and that William Smith published them in the Times and Seasons. Hopefully he will revise this.

4. A Strange Book Supports Claims in the Book of Mormon

Here, Woolley mentions that Dr. Bernhisel sent the Stephens book to Joseph but doesn’t know, or fails to mention, that Benjamin Winchester prompted Bernhisel to do it. Then Woolley cites the History of the Church for the proposition that “Joseph was so impressed with this book that a special notation of it was included in his diary.” He doesn’t tell his readers that this “diary” was compiled between 24 February and 3 May 1845, nearly 3 years after the purported events and eight to eleven months after Joseph died. The grammar of the excerpt reflects uncertainty. There is zero evidence that this is a direct quotation from Joseph Smith, or even a paraphrase of what he may have said. In fact, this “diary” is actually the Manuscript History. The portion of this “diary” referring to Stephens and the Nephites was not included in the actual Journal, as shown in the Joseph Smith papers, suggesting it was a later addition by someone else.
 http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842#!/paperSummary/journal-december-1841-december-1842&p=30

Here is the Manuscript History:
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842?p=522&highlight=Catherwood%20have%20succeeded%20in%20collecting%20in%20the%20interior%20of%20America

5. Stephens’s Book Is Evidence Supporting the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon

In this paragraph, Woolley again projects all kinds of thoughts onto Joseph–based on the writings of Benjamin Winchester.  One should be reluctant to attribute to Joseph’s own mind the words of a man Joseph himself described as being “rotten at heart” and a man “who would injure the Church as much as he could.” This is true of all four of the Times and Seasons articles Woolley attributes to Joseph.

6. Joseph Becomes Editor of the Times and Seasons, March 15, 1842

This is the old argument that a boilerplate notice included in every issue of the Times and Seasons from March through November 1842 somehow converted everything within its pages into the product of Joseph’s divine inspiration. In reality, there were articles written under pseudonyms, reprints from other newspapers (including the Wasp), unsigned articles, and articles signed by “Ed.” that were not signed by Joseph. In what sense did he take responsibility for all of this? It was his recognition that he couldn’t actually be fully responsible, especially after the “Zarahemla” article appeared without his prior knowledge or approval, that led him to finally resign as editor.

7. Joseph’s Second Article That Recognizes Central America as the Book of Mormon Lands

Another article written by Winchester, falsely attributed to Joseph Smith, actually provides no support for the Mesoamerican theory.

8. Facts Are Stubborn Things

This is the article that Winchester “signed” with the masthead from his own newspaper, the Gospel Reflector.

9. Joseph Writes Yet Another Article on the Subject

Woolley writes that “Apparently, the third article made enough of a stir to warrant a follow-up article only fifteen days later.” There is zero evidence of such a stir. The only “stir” the previous articles created was in the minds of Winchester and William Smith, to encourage them to come out with the “Zarahemla” article.

10. Joseph’s Editorial Responsibility for the Times and Seasons Is Concluded

Woolley doesn’t realize that it was the unauthorized publication of the Mesoamerican articles that led Joseph Smith to resign!

11. The Conclusions

The conclusion to this article is a compound error. First, Woolley incorrectly assumes Joseph wrote these Times and Seasons articles, when he definitely did not. Second, he claims “no doubt his excitement must have been extremely high as he read Stephens’s [sic] book [sic],” yet Joseph waited nearly a year after receiving the books from Bernhisel before getting around to telling people about that excitement. And when he finally got around to it, he had Benjamin Winchester write the articles! And that’s assuming Joseph had anything to do with these articles. The historical evidence shows he did not.

Addendum

To support his argument, Woolley cites John Taylor’s speculation that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. Of course, no one can say where Quetzalcoatl visited the people. This is a mythical figure who could have been from anywhere, from any culture. Quetzalcoatl could have been based on the actual visit of Christ, handed down through generations from North America. Or it could be based on other visits of Christ to his lost sheep that we don’t know about. But it is not evidence that Book of Mormon events took place in Central America. The Moses Thatcher quotation merely reflects the legacy of Benjamin Winchester.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Another note on ancient writing

[Note: while I’m out of the country, we’re re-posting the most popular posts from the last few years]

I keep hearing that evidence of ancient writing is critical to any proposed setting for the Book of Mormon. I’ve written about this before, but because it keeps coming up, I’ll discuss it again briefly.

Dead Sea scrolls

A common objective in negotiations, research, and debate is to frame the situation in favorable terms. In the legal profession, trial and appellate lawyers spend a lot of time creating arguments that put their clients’ position in a favorable context. Anyone who advocates something–politician, scientist, marketer, author–tries to do the same thing.

It’s no different with Book of Mormon geography. That’s why we see “requirements” or “conditions” for proposed settings that include requirements designed to frame the discussion in favor of one particular setting–the one being advocated by the proponent. That’s what the volcano requirement is. The text says nothing about volcanoes, but some scholars have imposed a requirement that a setting for the Book of Mormon must feature volcanoes. It’s a transparent tactic because the setting they favor features volcanoes.

We see this in the requirement for “headwaters” of Sidon (instead of head of Sidon) and “mountainous wilderness” which is never once mentioned in the text. There are many such examples.
_________________

The requirement that there must be evidence of writing is similar to the volcano requirement. Those who impose this requirement favor settings where there is already evidence of ancient writing, extending back to 500 BC and beyond.

There are two problems here. First, the ancient writing found is neither Hebrew nor Egyptian, so it doesn’t line up to the text.

Second, the Book of Mormon text itself not only doesn’t require evidence of ancient writing, but it says any such evidence would be destroyed.

IOW, to match up with the Book of Mormon, we would need to find evidence of an ancient civilization that included advanced features, yet left no evidence of writing behind.
________________

The text notes that Nephi and his successors kept records on metal plates, but several of the record keepers wrote very little (Jarom). Presumably more was recorded on the plates maintained by the kings (Omni 1:11), which would account for all the records that Joseph and Oliver observed in the room in the Hill Cumorah.

The text mentions two other mediums of writing: stone and impermanent material.

The sole instance of writing on stone is in Omni 1:20 “And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.”

This stone was a significant item for the people of Zarahemla because they were illiterate, but it is also significant because it is unique. We will not find a setting for the Book of Mormon in an area that features engraving on stones as a common practice. Stone engraving must be rare to nonexistent, except for the one stone left by Coriantumr. This is particularly noteworthy because Hebrew people knew about Moses and the 10 Commandments written on stone; presumably they would have done likewise, but the text mentions only this single stone in 1,000 years of history.

[Alma 10:2 refers to “writing which was upon the wall of the temple which was written by the finger of God.” The wall of the temple is not otherwise described; it could have been made of stone or wood or cement. But again, this was a highly unusual occurrence, which is why it was memorable enough that Amulek identified himself as a descendant of Aminadi, the man everyone knew because he interpreted the writing on the wall.]

Other than writing on plates, there is an example of a writing medium that is generally presumed to be paper or parchment. Alma 14:8 says “they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.” This is interesting wording. The next verse says the people thrown into the fire “were consumed by fire,” but the scriptures were “burned and destroyed” by fire–not consumed. It’s not a major point, but it’s entirely possible that these records (nothing says they were possessed by lay worshippers, by the way) were also on metal plates that melted in the flames. Thus, they were burned and destroyed but not consumed. I think this is the most reasonable interpretation, but I recognize it’s also possible the records were consumed, despite what the text says.

The text never uses the terms paper, parchment, papyrus, or bark. The only medium mentioned in the text that could be used for transitory writing is skins. Because some of the dead sea scrolls were written on animal skins, it’s easy to imagine that the Nephite culture did likewise.

And that explains the problem.

Transitory writing material is difficult to preserve (even absent Fahrenheit 451 events such as in Alma 14). Even if the Nephites did write on paper, papyrus, skins, etc., could we expect the material to survive 1,000 years?

Jacob observed that the only writing that would endure was what he engraved on plates.

Jacob 4:1 “we know that the things which we write upon plates must remain; 2 But whatsoever things we write upon anything save it be upon plates must perish and vanish away; but we can write a few words upon plates, which will give our children, and also our beloved brethren, a small degree of knowledge concerning us, or concerning their fathers.”

If Jacob was engraving stones the way the Mayans did, he would not have said the engravings “must parish and vanish away.” Instead, he explained that the plates were the only form of writing that would not perish and vanish away. Any culture from which we have ancient writing that has not perished and vanished away (except for writing on metal plates) cannot therefore be the culture in which Jacob lived.

In North America, we find cultures that had sophisticated societies capable of building geometric earthworks with great precision and replication, yet any evidence of writing has perished and vanished away, just as Jacob explained.

In Mesoamerica, the opposite is true.

Storage conditions are not the only problem, of course. As early as around 420 B.C., Enos explained the Nephite records were in jeopardy. “For at the present our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers.” Enos 1:14.

As late as 385 A.D., the prophet Mormon had the same concern: “having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.” Mormon 6:6

Mormon hid up all the records. These are presumably the ones Joseph and Oliver saw in the room in the Hill Cumorah. (The qualifier “entrusted to me” does leave open the possibility that additional records existed, but Mormon says they Lamanites would destroy any records they could get their hands on.)

So if all the permanent records were written on metal and hidden up in Cumorah, and the only record engraven on stone was the one Coriantumr left, and to the extent the Nephites used transitory materials for some writing (as could be implied from Alma 14), that leaves nothing left for posterity to find. (Well, okay, Coriantumr’s stone may be out there somewhere, unless it was 1) destroyed, 2) lost, or 3) carted off by the Mayans who invaded around 800 A.D. before returning to Central America centuries later.)

Consequently, according to the text, there should be little if any evidence of writing among the Book of Mormon people in the time period between 600 BC and 400 A.D.

Except for the records Joseph and Oliver saw.
_____________

All of this means that the next time someone tells you there has to be evidence of ancient writing in any proposed setting for the Book of Mormon, ask, “Do you mean besides the records in the Hill Cumorah that Joseph and Olvier saw?”

Because those records are the only ones the text says would survive.

After all, that’s why we needed the Book of Mormon in the first place. It reveals history that would otherwise remain forever unknown.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

The Emperor’s new clothes

[I’m out of the country for a few weeks so we’re posting classic posts from the past]

The Emperor’s new clothes

The utility of a model or theory in math, science, economics, or any other field depends on its ability to explain the real world and predict how things will work in the future as we obtain more data and experience.

In my view, the models of Book of Mormon geography that put Cumorah anywhere except New York have essentially no utility.*

It’s easy to see why.

They are all based on two fundamental defects.

First, they reject what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about Cumorah in Letter VII and elsewhere.

Second, they are based on a mistake in Church history that wrongly attributed to Joseph Smith statements written by others.

When your theory or model is based on such a sandy foundation, can you really be surprised when it eventually collapses?
_________

Recently a well-known tour leader claimed that when Joseph Smith was shown Catherwood’s drawings of Central America, he declared them to be ruins of Nephite cities. Of course, there is no such account. He was turning the anonymous Times and Seasons articles into a false narrative, fabricating a conversation that never took place.

Fabrication is characteristic of the non-New York Cumorah theories. Proponents “see” volcanoes, jungles, Mayan ruins, tapirs, jaguars and more in the text of the Book of Mormon. Then they expect the rest of us to “see” these things as well, like the Emperor** who expected his subjects to “see” the fine clothing made out of nothing by the clever weavers.

Like the fairy tale weavers, Mesoamerican proponents say the Mesoamerican elements in the text are invisible to those who are not sufficiently educated. You need expertise in a relevant field to understand the two-Cumorahs theory, for example.

But that’s not the only problem.

The more we learn about ancient Mesoamerican society, the less it can be construed to align with the Book of Mormon.

Experts are deciphering more and more records left by the ancient inhabitants of Central America, and the more they decipher, the more it becomes obvious that no one was quoting the Old Testament or explaining the ministry of Christ.

Nevertheless, there are characteristics of most human societies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and in ancient Mesoamerican accounts. The Mayans had kingdoms and wars and political intrigue. So did the Book of Mormon people. But what human society has not had kingdoms and wars and political intrigue?

If, instead of rejecting what Joseph and Oliver said, we embrace it, we soon see that the text of the Book of Mormon describes North America very well. That’s why I wrote Moroni’s America.

Not only that, the North American setting makes sense, now and in the future.

Unlike in Central America, the Native American Indians in North America did not leave behind extensive written records of their kings and battles.

Hmmm, you’re thinking. Maybe that’s why Nephi, Mosiah, Alma and the rest kept such careful records of these things on metal plates. They were not engraving stones and painting murals everywhere.

Maybe that’s why Enos and Mormon and Moroni were so concerned about the Lamanites destroying the plates; without the plates, the history would be lost.

Unlike in Mesoamerica.

Instead of creating new clothes out of whole cloth (i.e., fabricated or made up), how about if we stick with what the text actually says, and what the translators of the text said about it?

Let’s agree that there is one Cumorah and that it’s in New York. Then we can discuss the geography from there.
_______________

*I acknowledge that these models are important to people living in those areas because they seem to help people liken the scriptures to themselves. This utility is unrelated to explaining the real world or predicting the future.

**Reference to “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” described this way by wikipedia:

a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that they don’t see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as “unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent”. Finally, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” 

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

The philosophies of men

[Note: while I’m out of the country, we’re re-posting the most popular posts from the last few years]
BYU “abstract map” used by BYU faculty
to teach students that the prophets are wrong
about the New York Cumorah and that students
should believe philosophies of BYU professors,
mingled with scripture (as interpreted by
those same BYU professors)
Go to http://bom.byu.edu/.
Today I want to look at what is really being taught about Cumorah in our Visitors’ Centers, at BYU/CES, in the Joseph Smith Papers, etc.

I don’t know of a better description than this: what is being taught about Cumorah are the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

The Book of Mormon itself warns us of this danger.

O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not… But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29).

The entire premise of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) consists of M2C intellectuals setting aside the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, supposing they know of themselves.

The M2C intellectuals think they are wise–wiser than the prophets and apostles. They have persuaded their students for decades that they (the intellectuals) are wise, while the prophets and apostles are naive speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York.

Now those trusting students themselves have become teachers at BYU/CES, historians, Church employees who set up the displays in the Visitors Centers, etc.
_____

The M2C intellectuals are familiar with 2 Nephi 9:28. They teach it to their students and profess to believe it. They just don’t apply it to themselves.

Instead, their confirmation bias is so strong that they honestly believe they are not setting aside the teachings of the prophets because, according to them, the prophets never taught that Cumorah was in New York.

Of course, that’s walking in darkness at noon day. Letter VII and all the confirming teachings of the prophets and apostles are as plain as word can be. Yet, the intellectuals are imposing their falsehoods on the entire Church through their journals and publications, the Visitors Centers, the curriculum, the media, etc.

To confirm their M2C bias, they have invented a Church history narrative that not only is unsupported by historical documents and accounts, but outright contradicts them. This imaginary Church history is being taught at the North Visitors Center on Temple Square, as discussed here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/11/visiting-temple-square-moroni-at-hill.html

and here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/04/more-confused-church-history-at-temple.html

It’s one thing for the Visitors Center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City to mislead people about what happened far away in New York, but they have replicated this exhibit in the Visitors Center at the Hill Cumorah in New York!

Hill Cumorah Visitors Center, with Moroni on the
right, burying the plates in the New York hill lds.org

The thousands of visitors to the Hill Cumorah in New York are taught that the hill is important only because Joseph found the plates there.

Nothing in the Cumorah Visitors Center tells visitors (or missionaries) what the prophets and apostles have taught about that sacred location, apart from Moroni’s stone box. Instead, the exhibits and artwork teach M2C. 

Visitors are never taught about Mormon’s depository or the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites.

This display of the “New York hill” (they refuse to call it Cumorah) shows Moroni burying the plates, along with the Liahona and the sword of Laban.

It’s absurd on many levels. First, Joseph and Oliver each described the contents of Moroni’s stone box in detail: plates, breastplate and interpreters. No one ever said the stone box contained the Liahona and/or the sword of Laban.

This exhibit is pure fiction.

The exhibit is accompanied by a film that actually depicts Moroni putting the Liahona and the sword of Laban into the stone box.

We’re supposed to believe that Joseph either (i) carried these objects home, and then to Harmony, and then to Fayette, all without anyone else ever seeing or commenting about them; or (ii) left them in the stone box for several years, where all the people looking for treasure never found them.

Neither scenario is plausible, to say the least.

We all wonder, “Why would Church historians and media employees create this false narrative?”

The answer: M2C.
_____

If the Visitors Center displays depicted the words of the prophets instead of the words of the intellectuals, we’d see Mormon’s depository (Mormon 6:6) and Moroni’s stone box in the same hill. This is what Joseph, Oliver, and all of their contemporaries and successors have taught.

It would look something such as this:

Instead, we get the false narrative that missionaries are forced to teach, even when they know it makes no sense. Members are confused. Investigators find it absurd. 

No one actually believes Joseph found the Liahona and the sword of Laban in Moroni’s stone box. 

THIS NARRATIVE RAISES DOUBTS ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE ON DISPLAY IN THESE VISITORS CENTERS.
_____

We return to the question, “Why would Church historians and media employees create this false narrative?”

The reason is the interplay between M2C and D&C 17:1, which promised the Three Witnesses this:

Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.

A basic tenet of M2C dogma is that Mormon’s depository is the “real Cumorah,” somewhere in southern Mexico. But the Three Witnesses testified they saw the plates in New York, near the Whitmer home in Fayette. The M2C intellectuals claim these witnesses also saw the other artifacts when the angel showed them the plates near Fayette. Therefore, the M2C intellectuals claim, the other artifacts had to also be in Moroni’s stone box. 
See how convoluted your dogma gets once you reject the prophets and apostles? This is what we get when we mingle the philosophies of men with scripture.
The prophets and apostles have consistently taught that the depository containing the Liahona, the sword of Laban, and other artifacts and plates was in the same hill in New York from which Joseph got the plates. There was no need for Moroni to transfer these items to the stone box.
If we heeded the words of the prophets and apostles, we would never see such a false narrative in our visitors centers, let alone be expected to teach (and believe) such nonsense.
_____
The Three Witnesses testified only about the plates. Joseph told his parents he was relieved because they saw the plates. And yet, the subsequent verses told the witnesses to testify about what they saw:
2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.

3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;

4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work.

5 And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them.
Because the Three Witnesses testified only about seeing the plates, are we to infer that they disobeyed the commandment? 
I don’t think so.
Notice in verse 1 the “and also” phrase that separates the plates from the other artifacts. It’s certainly possible that they saw all these things at the same time and forgot to include them in their formal testimony. Or maybe they were told not to testify of these things after all; i.e., maybe the specific revelation in D&C 17 was superseded by a subsequent, unmentioned and undocumented revelation.
Historians know that David Whitmer later said he, Joseph and Oliver did see all these objects, along with the original plates of brass, the 24 gold plates of Ether, and other plates. This is the account that Church historians and M2C intellectuals rely upon.
Brigham Young and others related accounts by Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Smith about seeing these objects in Mormon’s depository inside the Hill  Cumorah. I think the depository is what David Whitmer was describing; IOW, he saw these objects on a separate occasion from the time when the angel showed him the plates. Of course, it’s still possible that he saw all these other objects when he had the Three Witness experience. 
Either way, nothing in any of the accounts supports the idea that Joseph found the Liahona and sword of Laban. That false narrative depicted in the Visitors Centers is purely a fiction contrived to support M2C and repudiate the teachings of the prophets.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Why scholars oppose the prophets

We might think that the answer to Book of Mormon geography/historicity is to accumulate all the facts and apply the best reasoning. It seems logical that the best informed and “smartest” people would most easily reach agreement on issues. After all, facts are facts; the more facts we have, the closer we should be to the truth, and the better trained and the smarter we are, the better we should be able to understand and apply the facts.

But in real life, it doesn’t work out that way.

People engage in “motivated reasoning” all the time. They seek to confirm their biases. And the more cognitive capacity you have, the more you engage in motivated reasoning.

In her book, The Influential Mind, Tali Sharot makes this observation after summarizing experiments in which those people who were the most analytical were the worst at assessing data:

These findings debunk the idea that motivated reasoning is somewhat a trait of less intelligent people. To the contrary, the greater your cognitive capacity, the greater your ability to rationalize and interpret information at will, and to creatively twist data to fit your opinions. 

Ironically, then, people may use their intelligence not to draw more accurate conclusions but to find fault in data they are unhappy with. This is why, when arguing with others, our instinct for offering facts and figures that support our views and contradict theirs may not be the optimal approach. Even if the person in front of you is highly intelligent, you may find it difficult to change their mind with counterevidence. (p. 24, emphasis added)
Really, this should be obvious to Latter-day Saints. The people we should trust the least are the intellectuals, especially when they say the prophets are wrong.

_____

The fundamental question about Book of Mormon geography is whether we follow the prophets or the intellectuals and scholars.

President Benson warned,  “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

There are lots of reasons why the “learned” (the scholars, intellectuals, etc.) prefer their own ideas over those of the prophets. I’ve discussed these previously in a series of posts, including this one:
When we see how vigorously the intellectuals fight against the prophets’ consistent and persistent teachings about the New York Cumorah, we see an excellent example of what Shaort observes in her book. 
This is how we end up with employees at BYU, CES, and the Church Departments convincing members of the Church that the prophets are wrong. No amount of evidence can or will persuade them otherwise. Every teaching of the prophets that contradicts the views of these intellectuals will be rationalized away.
But members of the Church who follow the prophets accept the New York Cumorah. Then they are open to all the corroborating evidence that is coming forth.
The only possible consensus about Book of Mormon geography/historicity lies in acceptance of the unambiguous, clear, persistent and consistent teachings of the prophets.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

What is the M2C "because"?

The most persuasive word in the English language is “because.” Studies show that people will do things for others if given a reason.  Robert Cialdini’s book Influence gives lots of examples, and there’s a good summary here:

https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/is-this-single-most-persuasive-word-in-english-language.html?cid=email
_____

If you have a friend, neighbor, Ward member, Seminary or Institute teacher, BYU professor, Church leader, or anyone else who teaches the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory of Book of Mormon geography, see if they will give you their “because.”

Here is what the M2C proponents are really saying:

“I want you to reject what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah because….”

Then see how they fill in the blank.

They typically will give a smoke-screen because consisting of rhetoric about the “scholarly consensus” or “Joseph Smith said in the Times and Season.” These are all examples of the fake because that Cialdini talks about in his book.

Don’t accept a fake because at face value. Press them for the “real because.”

The real reason they want you to reject what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah is because they think the scholars know more than the prophets.

Most of them won’t admit that at first, but that’s what it always boils down to.

When framed this way, few members of the Church will accept M2C. That’s why they always mask their “because” with the smoke screens.

Try it for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Ministering and Cumorah

The new emphasis on ministering is awesome. But there is a very serious problem going on that nobody wants to discuss. It has to do with ministering and the Book of Mormon, and the problem has developed because we’ve veered off the course that Joseph and Oliver established long ago.

LDS scholars have repudiated the prophets, many Church employees have followed their lead, and until we as a people decide to reject the scholars and embrace the prophets, this problem is only going to get worse.
_____

Almost 40 years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson said, “The Book of Mormon is the instrument that God designed to “sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out [His] elect.” (Moses 7:62.) This sacred volume of scripture needs to become more central in our preaching, our teaching, and our missionary work.”

October 1988 General Conference, “Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon,”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1988/10/flooding-the-earth-with-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

He went on to say,

The time is long overdue for a massive flooding of the earth with the Book of Mormon for the many reasons which the Lord has given. In this age of the electronic media and the mass distribution of the printed word, God will hold us accountable if we do not now move the Book of Mormon in a monumental way.

It’s fair to say that the Church has done more to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon over the last 40 years. There are over 160 million copies in print, and essentially infinite numbers of electronic versions. Verses have been posted on social media billions of times.

And yet, what are the results? Not what President Benson anticipated. According to the statistics,

LDS membership growth rates have decelerated to their lowest levels since 1937 at a mere 1.48% during 2017… The number of convert baptisms in 2017 was the lowest reported by the Church since 1987 when there were 227,000 converts baptized.

http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2018/03/2017-statistical-report.html

Why would flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon lead to declining baptisms? Why are most baptisms in areas where people don’t speak English and have little access to the Internet?

Because certain LDS intellectuals have repudiated the prophets, and employees in Church departments follow the intellectuals instead of the prophets regarding a key, fundamental point about the Book of Mormon.

Early Church leaders knew the importance of physical evidence as proof of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. During Zion’s camp, Joseph Smith  recounted “the history of the Book of Mormon” while passing through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, which he said were “the plains of the Nephites.” He described “roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”

On another occasion, President Cowdery responded to reports that the Latter-day Saints disbelieved the Bible. He wrote, “We believe that sacred record from the evidence we have of its divine authenticity, and because we believe it a consistent book, when taken in its true meaning.” (Messenger and Advocate, October 1836, p. 385).

Evidence to support the divine authenticity of the Bible was just as important as evidence to support the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph thought “proof of its divine authenticity” was important during his lifetime, so why would it not be important now?


The answer, of course, is that it is even more important now than ever before.
_____


Apart from Joseph’s teachings during Zion’s camp, what else did Joseph and Oliver teach about physical evidence?

They taught that the hill Cumorah was in New York.This means the site of the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, Mormon’s depository of Nephite records, and Moroni’s stone box containing the abridgment of those records.

Certain LDS scholars have rejected the New York Cumorah. Thanks to their efforts, students at BYU and CES, along with Church employees in various Church departments, also reject the New York Cumorah. 

How can a sincere, knowledgeable investigator take the Book of Mormon seriously when LDS intellectuals and employees throughout Church departments teach that our own prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah? 

These LDS intellectuals and employees promote a Mesoamerican setting that claims there are actually two Cumorahs: a false one in New York, and a real one in southern Mexico. To repudiate the prophets, these intellectuals cite illusory “correspondences” between Mayan culture and their strained interpretations of the text of the Book of Mormon.

Meanwhile, there is abundant evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. The text itself describes North America. The archaeology, geology and anthropology support what the text and the prophets teach. 

More and more, potential investigators (and many Church members, especially the youth) are saying, “Get your act together on the Book of Mormon first if you want us to take the book seriously.”

Once we do this–once we return to the course long established by the prophets about the New York Cumorah–that unity will generate new energy and power as we minister to members and nonmembers. 

Then President Benson’s vision will be fulfilled.
We have the Book of Mormon, we have the members, we have the missionaries, we have the resources, and the world has the need. The time is now!

My beloved brothers and sisters, we hardly fathom the power of the Book of Mormon, nor the divine role it must play, nor the extent to which it must be moved.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Rejecting false traditions

One of the great insights in the Book of Mormon involves the persistence of traditions and how people and societies preserve traditions through confirmation bias.

The classic example is the narrative of Nephi and his brothers. According to Nephi, leaving Jerusalem and taking the brass plates was God’s will. According to Laman, the people of Jerusalem were righteous and Nephi was a usurper. Both sides cited the same facts, but had entirely opposite interpretations.*

These interpretations became the traditions, or narratives, that separated the Nephites from the Lamanites for centuries.
_____

Today in the Church there are two traditions, or narratives, that cause division among Church members regarding the Book of Mormon. The persistence of this division causes confusion among youth, missionaries and investigators. 

It’s time to resolve this.

Tradition A teaches that the prophets have been wrong about the New York Cumorah. 

Tradition B teaches that the prophets have been correct about the New York Cumorah. 

The best-known iteration of B is the Heartland. The best-known iteration of A is M2C–the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

Tradition A is taught by BYU, CES, and the Departments in COB (the Church Office Building, such as the History, Correlation and Missionary Departments). It has never been taught in General Conference or by any prophet or apostle.

Tradition B is taught by various individuals, but is actively opposed by BYU, CES, and COB. It has been consistently taught by the prophets and apostles, including in General Conference, and has never been repudiated or even questioned by any prophet or apostle.

Basically, Tradition A claims the prophets and apostles who have taught the New York Cumorah were expressing their own ignorant opinions and were wrong because certain LDS intellectuals know more than the prophets and apostles. These M2C intellectuals think the New York Cumorah is a foolish tradition.

Tradition B claims the prophets and apostles who taught the New York Cumorah were correct and that it is the intellectuals who are expressing their own opinions and are wrong.

Prophets vs scholars, yet again.
_____

ORIGINS

It’s easy to see the origins of Tradition B. Start with Letter VII and then read the teachings of the prophets and apostles.

It’s not as easy to see the origins of Tradition A because it developed over time. It is not easy to persuade active, faithful LDS that the prophets and apostles are wrong. Even after decades of concerted effort through CES, BYU, and COB Departments, the M2C intellectuals have not persuaded all members of the Church that the prophets were wrong. In fact, the tide may be turning.

I’ve addressed these origins before, such as here (https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-m2c-intellectuals-persist.html), but it isn’t the origins that matter.

It’s how we deal with the traditions.
_____

The Zoramites explained their rejection of the traditions of their fathers this way:

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children… we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren,

Helaman 5:19 shows that it is possible for people to reject false traditions.

Therefore they did speak unto the great astonishment of the Lamanites, to the convincing them, insomuch that there were eight thousand of the Lamanites who were in the land of Zarahemla and round about baptized unto repentance, and were convinced of the wickedness of the traditions of their fathers.

To reach unity on this topic, the only solution is to accept the teachings of the prophets and apostles, which means rejecting the false tradition A that repudiates those teachings.

The question is, how many M2C intellectuals are capable of doing this? How many are willing to?
_____
* Zeniff explained this well in Mosiah 10:

11 Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. Yet they were a strong people, as to the strength of men.

12 They were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, believing in the tradition of their fathers, which is this—Believing that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem because of the iniquities of their fathers, and that they were wronged in the wilderness by their brethren, and they were also wronged while crossing the sea;

13 And again, that they were wronged while in the land of their first inheritance, after they had crossed the sea, and all this because that Nephi was more faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord—therefore he was favored of the Lord, for the Lord heard his prayers and answered them, and he took the lead of their journey in the wilderness.

14 And his brethren were wroth with him because they understood not the dealings of the Lord; they were also wroth with him upon the waters because they hardened their hearts against the Lord.

15 And again, they were wroth with him when they had arrived in the promised land, because they said that he had taken the ruling of the people out of their hands; and they sought to kill him.

16 And again, they were wroth with him because he departed into the wilderness as the Lord had commanded him, and took the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, for they said that he robbed them.

17 And thus they have taught their children that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they have an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Church History Department and Letter VII

Some people are uncomfortable with my observations about the way employees in Church departments (Correlation, Curriculum History and Missionary Departments) are promoting the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

I wish these employees were not promoting M2C. But we have to get real about this problem. The prophets (referring to all the prophets and apostles collectively) have consistently and repeatedly taught that Cumorah is in New York. No prophet has ever questioned or repudiated that teaching. But some LDS intellectuals have, and so have employees in these Church Departments.

The prophets always tell us to study the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets. They don’t tell us to reject those teachings just because LDS scholars and Church employees do.

Just because CES and BYU reject what the prophets have taught doesn’t mean we have to follow them instead of the prophets.

Today we’ll look more closely at one example that I’ve briefly discussed before. The Church History Department doesn’t want people to read Letter VII because the staff is promoting M2C. M2C influences everything they do, including the notes in the Joseph Smith Papers and the upcoming book titled Saints that has been excerpted in the Ensign.

This is a very serious issue because Saints will become the standard book on Church history for the entire world and it is misrepresenting Church history to promote M2C.

The April Ensign includes chapter 3 from the book. They can’t censor Letter VII completely because it contains historical details available nowhere else, but they don’t want anyone to know what Letter VII says about the Hill Cumorah. Consequently, they make it difficult to find.

Today’s example is from the online version of Chapter 3. Go to this link and click on note 13:

https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/03-plates-of-gold?lang=eng

Here is a screenshot of the page. The left column is a table of contents, the center column is the text, and the right column shows the footnotes. It’s an excellent format:

Here is a close up that shows what they are doing.


Comment 1. You see how they cite Letter VII, but they give the reference only as the July 1835 Messenger and Advocate, with no hyperlink. As a reader of this blog, you know what the Messenger and Advocate is, but probably fewer than 5% of Church members have ever heard of it. No one knows how to find it.

Comment 2. Notice how they give references to the JSP for these two references, but they do not give the JSP reference for Letter VII. This is intentional. They could easily have referred to JSP, H1:72-79, where we can read Letter VII in Joseph’s own history. But they don’t want people to even know about that.

Comment 3. This is supposed to be Letter VII, but instead they label it as Letter IV again.

If you click on the link, it doesn’t even go to Letter VII. Instead, it goes to the first page of the Messenger and Advocate on archive.org. From there, you can navigate to p. 155, where Letter VII starts, but because of the way archive.org works, it shows up as page 160 in the scroll bar. Plus, on archive.org it is difficult to read, copy, etc.

Instead, the Church History Department could have given a link to the Joseph Smith Papers.
Letter VII is right here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/83

Why wouldn’t the Church History Department give this obvious link to readers?

They could argue that the Messenger and Advocate was the first publication. That sounds like a legitimate argument, but note 113 at the top of Letter VII in the JSP already explains that it came from the Messenger and Advocate. (BTW, the JSP notes don’t tell readers that Letter VII was also republished in the Times and Seasons, the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, and the Prophet.)

The Church History Department knows full well that Joseph’s history contains Letter VII, but they don’t want Church members to know that because of what Letter VII says about the hill Cumorah in New York. (those passages begin here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/89).

You will see in upcoming chapters that Saints never tells readers what Joseph and Oliver actually taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

In fact, Saints is already deliberately misleading readers about early Church history, as I’ll explain in an upcoming post. They are doing this solely to promote M2C.
_____

BTW, I’ve told the Church History Department about these errors, but they couldn’t care less about what I say, so they haven’t even corrected the obvious error of listing Letter IV twice.

Source: Letter VII

Uncategorized

Fairly Mormon

Among the M2C citation cartel, one organization stands out.

It’s called FairMormon, formerly known as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR). You can see their web page here: https://www.fairmormon.org/

I call them Fairly Mormon because while they offer helpful resources and commentary on many LDS issues, they are actively trying to persuade members of the Church to disbelieve the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

It’s really a shame because Fairly Mormon’s web site has a lot of great resources. If they weren’t adamant about forcing M2C onto members of the Church (and investigators) they would provide an invaluable resource. But because of their Mesomania, they refuse to follow the Church’s policy on neutrality and reject any presentation of materials that contradict their M2C advocacy.

If you want to observe a who’s-who of M2C advocates, Fairly Mormon is having a conference in August. Details here: https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2018#speakers

They aren’t the most influential group. Certainly CES, BYU, and COB departments are more influential overall. Last time I checked, at least Fairly Mormon wasn’t pushing a fantasy map of the Book of Mormon, or developing M2C displays in the Visitors Centers.

But Fairly Mormon uses a combination of techniques that makes them especially dangerous.

To review, here are the five standard techniques used by all the M2C intellectuals:

1. Suppressing and censoring the words of the prophets.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/03/m2c-technique-1-suppressing-and.html

2. Using sophistry to teach that the prophets are wrong.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/03/m2c-technique-2-using-sophistry-to.html

3. Causing confusion by conflating separate and distinct teachings of the prophets.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/03/technique-3-causing-confusion-by.html

4. Imprinting the M2C theory on the minds of vulnerable students and missionaries (and investigators) through media, artwork, displays, and academic publications.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/03/m2c-technique-4-noahs-flood-imprinting.html

5. Dressing the new idea (M2C) in old habits to make it easier to accept.
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/03/m2c-technique-5-dressing-new-idea-m2c.html

To this list, Fairly Mormon adds these techniques:

1. Using anonymous articles. Fairly Mormon makes lots of statements that sound authoritative because they are anonymous; i.e., an anonymous article doesn’t have the “taint” of a particular author’s ownership. This is the same technique William Smith used when he published anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that were written by Benjamin Winchester and edited by William and W.W. Phelps.

I’ve discussed Fairly Mormon several times on this blog. Just go to the search box and type in “FairMormon” and you’ll get lots of blog posts.

Here’s one of the best examples of Fairly Mormon’s tactics:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Where_is_the_Hill_Cumorah%3F

I have an assessment of that one on my peer reviews page, here:
https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2018/04/fairly-mormon-on-cumorah.html

2. Exercising strict editorial control. This is related to technique #1 above, but it expands on that by claiming their “answers” are “faithful” and thereby implying that those who disagree with them are not faithful. Fairly Mormon uses sophistry to attack the views of those members of the Church who still believe what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.

Fairly Mormon will never compare M2C to the Heartland because they know most members of the Church would never accept M2C if they knew what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah, along with the archaeological, anthropological, geological and other extrinsic evidence.
_____

All this is to say that we have to be extremely cautious when we use (or refer people to) Fairly Mormon.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars