Author: Jonathan Neville

Roots Tech is a wonderful event.

https://www.rootstech.org/

You can watch some of it online if you can’t attend in person.

I was invited to talk about some of my books Wed evening and Thursday. I’ll be at booth 2146 by the Discovery area. Come on by and say hello.

Book of Mormon Central America is proud to announce that there’s a lot going on this year on April 7th.*

___
* Technically, World Tapir Day is April 27, http://www.tapirday.org/,
but the Book of Mormon Central conference boils down to Tapir Day too.

Latter-day Saints grow up with the wonderful words of the song, “Teach me to walk in the light of His love.”

We love the light.

We seek it.

The teachings of the prophets bright light to the world.

For example, Lorenzo Snow once wrote about his mission that “we knew that the work in which we were engaged was to carry light to those who sat in darkness.”

We know that rejecting the prophets leaves people in darkness.

Sadly, many Latter-day Saints are walking in darkness at noon-day regarding the hill Cumorah. 

Because many LDS intellectuals have rejected the teachings of the prophets regarding the New York Cumorah, they don’t know where Cumorah is.

Instead, they hold conclaves to discuss the question, relying purely on their own intellect and learning.

They speculate that Cumorah is in southern Mexico, or Baja, or Panama, or Chile, or elsewhere.

They even go on expeditions to Mesoamerica searching for Cumorah and debate about which mountain in Mesoamerica is Cumorah.

And they teach their students to follow them into the darkness.

Our intellectuals at BYU/CES take it a step further and teach their students that Cumorah is in a fantasy land.

BYU fantasy map, showing Cumorah in never-never land

They don’t even give their students a chance to learn what the prophets have taught about Cumorah.

And when students discover the teachings of the prophets on their own, these intellectuals confuse their students by claiming that the prophets were only giving their personal opinions and that they were wrong.

Because thousands of LDS students have been indoctrinated into this confusion about Cumorah for decades, they are walking in darkness at noon-day.

There’s a gothic-metal band called Walk in Darkness that released a new album a few weeks ago titled “Welcome to the New World.”

The album cover evokes the concept of rejecting the light.

Think of this “New World” as the world people enter when they reject the light and intentionally walk in darkness.

This includes students taught by LDS intellectuals who reject the teachings of the prophets.

_____

Consider what the scriptures say about walking in darkness.

Below are the references from the Topical Guide. They speak for themselves.

I hope everyone in the Church reads Letter VII and the consistent, oft-repeated teachings of the prophets that reaffirm what Letter VII teaches: that there is one Cumorah and it is in New York.

Topical Guide – Walking in Darkness

So we see

Some people find President Cowdery’s Letter VII to be a little long, so here are some excerpts to enjoy. These are directly from the version in the Joseph Smith Papers, in Joseph’s own history now referred to as History, 1834-1836.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/89

President Cowdery was as specific as possible when he identified the hill Cumorah. He claimed it was a fact that this hill in New York, from which Joseph obtained the plates from Moroni, was also the setting for the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, as well as the location of Mormon’s depository of Nephite records.

You are acquainted with the mail road from Palmyra, Wayne Co. to Canandaigua, Ontario Co. N.Y. 

[Note: President Cowdery wrote these essays as letters to W.W. Phelps, who was living in Missouri at the time. Here, is referring to what is now State Route 21, the road that runs directly in front of the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center today]

and also, as you pass from the former to the latter place, before arriving at the little village of Manchester, say from three to four, or about four miles from Palmyra, you pass a large hill on the east side of the road. Why I say large, is because it is as large perhaps, as any in that country. To a person acquainted with this road, a description would be unnecessary, as it is the largest and rises the highest of any on that rout. 

The north end rises quite sudden until it assumes a level with the more southerly extremity, and I think I may say an elevation higher than at the south a short distance, say half or three fourths of a mile. As you pass toward canandaigua it lessens gradually until the surface assumes its common level, or is broken by other smaller hills or ridges, water courses and ravines. I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round, and I am certain that its appearance, as it rises so suddenly from a plain on the north, must attract the notice of the traveller as he passes by.


At about one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful vale between. The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.

By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon

[Note: President Cowdery was referring to the original edition of the Book of Mormon, which was not divided into chapter and verse. These pages are now Mormon chapter 6]

you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. (it is printed Camorah, which is an error.) 

[Note: “Camorah” was a typo in the original edition of the Book of Mormon, but it suggests the way Joseph pronounced the word because Oliver wrote phonetically.]

In this vally [sic] fell the remaining strength and pride of a once powerful people, the Nephites—once so highly favored of the Lord, but at that time in darkness, doomed to suffer extermination by the hand of their barbarous and uncivilized brethren. 

From the top of this hill, Mormon, with a few others, after the battle, gazed with horror upon the mangled remains of those who, the day before, were filled with anxiety, hope or doubt. 

A few had fled to the South, who were hunted down by the victorious party, and all who would not deny the Saviour and his religion, were put to death. Mormon himself, according to the record of his son Moroni, was also slain….

He (Mormon), however, by divine appointment, abridged from those records, in his own style and language, a short account of the more important and prominent items, from the days of Lehi to his own time, after which he deposited, as he says, on the 529th page, all the records in this same hill, Cumorah and after gave his small record to his son Moroni, who, as appears from the same, finished, after witnessing the extinction of his people as a nation.

It was not the wicked who overcame the righteous; far from this: it was the wicked against the wicked, and by the wicked the wicked were punished….

This hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: by it, or around it pitched the famous army of Coriantumr their tents.

[Note: see Ether 15:11]

Coriantumr was the last king of the Jaredites The opposing army were to the west, and in this same vally, and near by, from day to day, did that mighty race spill their blood, in wrath, contending, as it were, brother against brother, and father, against son. In this same spot, in full view from the top of this same hill, one may gaze with astonishment upon the ground which was twice covered with the dead and dying of our fellow men. Here may be seen where once sunk to nought the pride and strength of two mighty nations; and here may be contemplated, in solitude, while nothing but the faithful record of Mormon and Moroni is now extant to inform us of the fact, scenes of misery and distress…

In this vale lie commingled, in one mass of ruin the ashes of thousands, 

[Note: this refers to the Jaredites, of whom there were apparently fewer than 10,000 killed at Cumorah]

and in this vale was destined to consume the fair forms and vigerous [sic] systems of tens of thousands of the human race—blood mixed with blood, flesh with flesh, bones with bones and dust with dust!

[Note: this refers to the Nephites and Lamanites]

Resuming my analysis of John L. Sorenson’s book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, today we’ll see how, on the very first page, Brother Sorenson explains why he rejects the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

The significance of this point cannot be overstated.

Recall that Brother Sorenson had published two lengthy articles in the Ensign the year before this book was published by Deseret Book and heavily promoted by FARMS and LDS intellectuals generally.

Beginning in the 1970s, but especially after this book was published in 1985, thousands of students at BYU/CES have been carefully trained to reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, solely to establish M2C (Mesoamerica/two-Cumorahs theory).

By now, it’s considered quasi-heretical to believe what the prophets have taught about Cumorah.

If you get to the end of this post, you will see how the M2C intellectuals, their followers, and the M2C citation cartel have intentionally misled members of the Church about Church history and the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. This includes BYU/CES staff and their fantasy maps.

They have edited several key statements by Church leaders, taken others out of context, and omitted others completely to persuade members of the Church to believe them, the M2C intellectuals, instead of the prophets and apostles.

As usual, quotations from the text are in blue, my comments in red.

We’ll look at the first five pages of the book, starting with page 1.
_____

Before any other type of investigation, we must establish where the Book of Mormon story took place within the western hemisphere. p.1.

I think most LDS agree with this, although settings outside the western hemisphere have also been proposed, based on the text alone. That’s why it’s irrational to concoct an “internal” map based solely on the text. 

IMO, you could find a setting for the Book of Mormon just about anywhere in the world in just about any ancient human culture, so long as you are willing to supply definitions of terms that suit your preferred setting. Those who refuse to heed the words of the prophets are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)

If it occupied all the two American continents, we should know that. If a restricted territory was the scene, then that fact is essential. To mistake the geography would involve us in a set of entrained errors that would inevitably flaw any conclusions we made.  

Let’s repeat that last sentence: To mistake the geography would involve us in a set of entrained errors that would inevitably flaw any conclusions we made. 

In my view M2C is a set of cascading errors, starting with mistakes in Church history and compounded by ignoring/suppressing historical evidence that contradicts M2C, inventing “requirements” that point to Mesoamerica using circular reasoning, re-defining and conflating terms in the text so they support M2C, making illusory “correspondences” between Mayan and Nephite culture, etc. All of these are on display in Brother Sorenson’s book, as well as the other materials published by the M2C citation cartel.

If we were not to know where, and of course when, to find our comparative data, we might as well attempt to shed light on the Book of Mormon by assuming a setting in Spain or Siberia. 

The irony of this statement is, we could find illusory correspondences in Spain, Siberia, or wherever else we looked, just as easily as M2C intellectuals find such illusory correspondences in Mesoamerica. 

In a sense, this is a feature, not a bug; i.e., if people anywhere in the world want to liken the scriptures to themselves, they can relate to the Book of Mormon by making this type of comparison. 

BYU fantasy map that portrays the Book of Mormon as a fictional parable

But that approach comes with the risk of converting the Book of Mormon into a sort of parable, the way the BYU/CES fantasy maps do. If the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere, and the “best fit” is a fantasy map the way BYU/CES claim, then how could it be an actual history of actual people? 

If we stick with what the prophets have taught about Cumorah, at least we know the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient history. That’s why President Cowdery was so specific about the New York setting, actually; he was refuting anti-Mormon claims that the book was fiction. Today, Letter VII refutes the BYU/CES fantasy maps.

People anywhere in the world can still liken the text to themselves, the same way they do with the Bible. But at least we know the events actually took place on planet Earth, and that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in western New York at the hill Cumorah. 

A Map by Authority?

Many Latter-day Saints facing problems like Book of Mormon geography automatically turn to the leaders of the Church for answers. 

Not merely automatically, but with good reason, since these Church leaders have consistently taught that Cumorah is in New York.

It seems appropriate, then, to begin by determining whether or not Book of Mormon geography has already been settled by these leaders. 

Here is the first hint of what’s coming. The question is a red herring, framing the question as an appeal to extremes; i.e., no one suggests that “Church leaders” have “settled” “Book of Mormon geography.” Everyone involved with this issue knows that this question, framed this way, has not been answered. If it had, we wouldn’t be reading Brother Sorenson’s book. 

The legitimate question is not whether Church leaders have “settled Book of Mormon geography,” but whether they have settled any element of Book of Mormon geography. As we’ll see, the answer to that question is unequivocally YES.

The historical sources give no indication that Moroni’s instructions to young Joseph Smith included geography, nor did Joseph Smith claim inspiration on the matter. 

There is no point speculating about Brother Sorenson’s motives are here, but we can say this statement ignores inconvenient facts that contradict M2C and thereby misleads his readers. Of course, Brother Sorenson does not claim to be an expert in Church history, but these are two unequivocal statements that don’t withstand scrutiny. Yet they are part of the foundation of M2C. You will hear these claims still repeated today by M2C intellectuals and their followers.

Lucy Mack Smith said Joseph referred to the hill in New York as Cumorah even before he got the plates. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111 Joseph could only have learned that name from Moroni, of course. People can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what Lucy wrote as her bad or conflated memory, but the only reason to doubt what she wrote–and notice, she was quoting Joseph–is M2C dogma.

Parley P. Pratt, in Chapter 8 of his autobiography, described his mission to the Lamanites with Oliver Cowdery in 1830-1831. He related how he described the Book of Mormon to the Indians: “This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.” 

Here we have Moroni himself calling the hill Cumorah. Again, people can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what Parley wrote as his bad or conflated memory, but the only reason to doubt what he wrote is M2C dogma.

John Corrill met these missionaries in Ohio in 1830. Here is his account: “Sometime in the fall of 1830, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Peter Whitmer [Jr.] and Tiba [Ziba] Peterson, came through the county of Ashtabula, Ohio, where I then resided, on their way westward. They professed to be special messengers of the Living God, sent to preach the Gospel in its purity, as it was anciently preached by the Apostles. They had with them a new revelation, which they said had been translated from certain golden plates that had been deposited in a hill, (anciently called Camorah,) in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New York.” 
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-corrill-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-christ-of-latter-day-saints-1839/5 

This corroborates what Pratt said, but people can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what Corrill wrote as his bad or conflated memory. As always, the only reason to doubt what he wrote is M2C dogma.

The argument that Joseph did not “claim inspiration on the matter” is puzzling. Joseph didn’t claim inspiration when he related what Moroni told him–he simply related what Moroni told him. President Cowdery’s Letter IV has Moroni telling Joseph that the record of the Nephites was written and deposited not far from his home. That would mean Mormon and Moroni lived not far from Palmyra when they abridged the record. Oliver could have learned this only from Joseph himself. People can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what President Cowdery wrote, but the only reason to do so is to protect M2C dogma.

Brother Sorenson’s claim that Joseph did not “claim inspiration on the matter” is all the more bizarre when we remember that Joseph and Oliver, and others, actually visited Mormon’s depository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah in New York. You can see several accounts of this here. My commentary is here: http://www.lettervii.com/2017/07/mormons-repository-in-cumorah-explained.html

Again, people can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what Brigham Young and others taught about the depository by framing it as a vision of a hill in Mexico, or as his bad or conflated memory, or maybe as lies told by Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Smith, but the only reason to doubt these accounts of the depository is M2C dogma.

You see the pattern. Confirmation bias requires M2C proponents to disregard everything that contradicts their beliefs in M2C.

The point: Brother Sorenson either didn’t know about or for some reason chose not to mention these historical accounts that contradicted his preferred narrative. Other M2C intellectuals and their followers have followed this course to confirm their M2C bias, but it’s easy for those of us who don’t share the M2C bias to see how important and credible these historical accounts are, at least with respect to locating the Book of Mormon Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) in western New York.

Ideas he later expressed about the location of events reported in the book apparently reflected his own best thinking. 

This is a fascinating claim. First, Brother Sorenson ignored what the historical accounts said. Now he’s speculating about Joseph’s thought process. He doesn’t mention Joseph’s famous letter to Emma, when, from the banks of the Mississippi River on his way to Missouri as part of Zion’s Camp, Joseph wrote, “The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly [sic] the history of the Book of Mormon, 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.” You can read the letter here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-emma-smith-4-june-1834/2

Guessing at Joseph’s mental state is a variation in the pattern: people can confirm their M2C bias by rejecting what Joseph wrote as his speculation or “best thinking,” but the only reason to doubt what he wrote is M2C dogma. In this case Joseph was writing to Emma, who had acted as scribe and who, presumably, knew something about the Nephites. 

To give you an idea of how strong confirmation bias can be, one M2C intellectual claims that Joseph couldn’t have been referring to the Book of Mormon setting because the specific term “plains of the Nephites” doesn’t appear in the text. Just go to your digital Book of Mormon and search for “plains” and see how many references there are to Nephite “plains.” 

What looks like the first consensual interpretation of Book of Mormon geography among him and his associates was sweeping: The land southward was the whole of South America; the land northward, the North American continent. 

This is clever M2C rhetoric. There are no historical accounts of Joseph ever once embracing the hemispheric model. In fact, when he wrote the Wentworth letter, Joseph apparently used Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, as a template or source. Pratt had spent considerable space discussing the hemispheric model. Joseph removed all of that and replaced it with the statement that “the remnant are the Indians who live in this country.” 

Long-time readers will recognize that as the passage in the Wentworth letter that the Curriculum Committee edited out when they prepared the lesson manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. I explained this fascinating work here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-official-position-of-church-part-1.html

You ought to read the way the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers ignored this point and instead claimed that Joseph embraced M2C: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-orson-pratt-an-interesting-account-of-several-remarkable-visions-1840/22#historical-intro 

It’s true that some of Joseph’s associates discussed the hemispheric model. In particular, the Pratt brothers did. Others, such as Benjamin Winchester, focused more on Central America. But there was always a big difference between speculation about Book of Mormon locations such as Zarahemla or Lehi’s landing spot on one hand, and the location of Cumorah on the other. Not only did Joseph and his associates consistently and repeatedly identify the New York Cumorah as the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, but not a single one of them ever questioned that location. 

BTW, I discussed the hemispheric model briefly here: 
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/12/letter-vii-and-hemispheric-model.html

One indicator of that is an 1836 record in Frederick G. Williams’s handwriting attributing the statement to Joseph Smith that “Lehi and his company… landed on the continent of South America, in Chile, thirty degrees, south latitude.” Church leaders B. H. Roberts and John A. Widtsoe, both careful critics, were hesitant to accept the statement’s origin with the Prophet, yet it certainly wouldn’t be surprising if the Prophet had once held this view, since other early Church members seem to have believed it. (Williams later claimed that the statement about Chile was made to him by an angel rather than by Joseph.) p.2.

Notice this: “It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if the Prophet had once held this view.” This is a way to prepare readers to reach the conclusion that Joseph was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church about Book of Mormon geography. As Brother Sorenson points out, not even Williams claimed Joseph told him about Chile! So why would we impute this to Joseph? You can see this piece of paper here. Oliver Cowdery’s copy of some of the same material, but not the part about Chile, is here. (FWIW, for other reasons I think Lehi landed around the 30 degrees of latitude north (Florida). It’s possible Williams heard something about 30 degrees and inferred it was 30 degrees south, but that’s pure speculation at this point.)

In view of the fact that the Prophet’s ideas matured on other subjects over time, his thinking on Book of Mormon geography could also have undergone change. 

This is core, fundamental M2C dogma. There is not one shred of evidence that Joseph’s teaching about Cumorah in New York ever changed or even wavered. By now, I hope readers know about the context of Letter VII, that Joseph’s scribes copied into his personal history, the book that he kept with him until he died. Joseph’s own brothers reprinted Letter VII; in fact, William Smith reprinted Letter VII in the New York City newspaper titled The Prophet, on June 26, 1844–just two days after the martyrdom. Joseph and the New York Cumorah were linked from before he even obtained the plates until after his death. The only “change” in “his thinking” about the New York Cumorah is in the imagination of M2C proponents, a product of M2C confirmation bias.

In 1842, an editorial in the Church newspaper the Times and Seasons (September 15, pages 921-22) asserted that “Lehi… landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama).” Joseph Smith had assumed sole editorial responsibility for the contents of the paper six months before (page 710), although John Taylor was the formal editor. The location mentioned is, of course, about three thousand miles north of the point in Chile mentioned in the Williams note.

I’ve written three entire books about the history of the Times and Seasons and the authorship of these anonymous editorials, but to summarize, Joseph was no more an actual editor of the paper than he was an actual printer. No one suggests Joseph went to the print shop and operated the printing presses; he is just as unlikely to have actually edited the paper. 

There is not a single reference in his journal, or the journals of his associates, that show him editing anything other than his personal history (although we infer from his signature and the content that he edited/wrote the Wentworth letter). There is considerable evidence that he had no involvement at all with the Times and Seasons beyond articles/letters that he specifically signed.

I think Joseph’s brother William was the acting editor, probably assisted by W.W. Phelps. William was editing and publishing the Wasp, another Nauvoo paper printed on the same printing press in the same print shop. Several times, William published the same items in both papers. One of William’s friends, Benjamin Winchester, was a prolific author who had other anonymous articles published in the Times and Seasons. Because Winchester lived in Philadelphia, he was mailing material to William to publish. I don’t think Joseph ever saw this material until he read the newspaper like everyone else–after it was printed. 

Within a few weeks, another geographical item appeared in the newspaper. A remarkable bestseller of the time was John Lloyd Stephens’ Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, published in 1841. The September 1842 issue of the paper gave an enthusiastic review of the Stephens book, with long extracts from the fascinating account, which described the wonders of the Maya ruins for the first time in a readily available English-language source. In commenting on the first extract, the unnamed writer stated that the Nephites “lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found” (page 915). Two weeks later (October 1, 1842, p. 927), the writer reached a new conclusion:

“Since our “Extract” was published from Mr. Stephens’ “Incidents of Travel” etc., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatemala is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south. The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land.” p. 3.

The editorialist added, with picturesque phrasing but commendable caution,

“We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua [in Guatemala] are those of Zarahemla, but when the land, and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of the opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.”

M2C intellectuals and their followers like to attribute these articles to Joseph Smith, but they don’t mention that these same issues of the Times and Seasons contain letters from Joseph that he sent to the actual editor for publication because he was in hiding.  The letters became D&C 127 and 128. Remember that D&C 128:20 refers to Cumorah in the context of other events taking place in New York. Again, this Cumorah reference is consistent with everything else Joseph wrote or did regarding Cumorah, but because it contradicts the M2C narrative, the M2C intellectuals and their followers never tell you about it. When someone brings it up, they say Joseph was either confused or he was referring to a hill in Mexico! 

We lack assurance that the newspaper statements were actually made by Joseph Smith, although he had taken editorial responsibility for the paper. 

Here is commendable candor from Brother Sorenson–in a way. But look how it is phrased. “We lack assurance…” means we can’t prove it for sure, but he was in charge, after all. 

Neither can we be sure from any other source exactly what Joseph concluded on the matter.

If we can’t “be sure” about the New York Cumorah, there is little we can be sure about what Joseph “concluded” on any matter. For example, there is less uncertainty and diversity about the New York Cumorah than there is about what happened during the First Vision, thanks to the 4 varying accounts about that event. Not only do we have the historical accounts I mentioned, among others, but we have the definitive declarations of Letter VII that Joseph endorsed multiple times and that were published during his lifetime and beyond. There is not even a hint in the historical record that Joseph ever questioned or speculated about the New York Cumorah. 

Whether the Prophet Joseph personally believed that the Nephite lands were in Central America or not, leaders in daily association with him felt that this was the best answer to the question “where?”

While it’s true that Joseph’s associates had varying opinions about the rest of Book of Mormon geography, every one of those leaders taught that Cumorah was in New York.

Even more important for Latter-day Saints may be to realize that they considered it an open question, one to be pondered and researched, and they supplemented their scriptural study with the best resources from the limited secular scholarship available to them at that time. 

This is a fair statement about all the non-Cumorah sites people speculated about, but it’s not true of the New York Cumorah itself. The New York Cumorah was never an “open question” among Church leaders. At least, not through 1990. It has only been an “open question” among M2C intellectuals and their followers, for the obvious reasons stated by M2C dogma; i.e., the New York Cumorah is “too far” from Mesoamerica.

For those who do not share the M2C bias, the M2C complaint that New York is “too far away” is reason enough to reject Mesoamerica as the setting of any Book of Mormon events.

Twenty-one months after the Times and Seasons statements Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were dead. The events crowded into that hectic period before the martyrdom left the Prophet scant leisure for studies on the question of geography. However, an 1848 statement of Orson Pratt’s shows the continuing influence of the ideas voiced in the Times and Seasons six years before. The Nephites, said Pratt, “inhabited the cities of Yucatan” at the time they were attacked and driven from the land southward; this obviously ruled out Panama as “the narrow neck of land.”

Orson Pratt’s Cumorah footnote

In 1879, Orson Pratt put the Book of Mormon into the chapters and verses we have today. He included footnotes on the geography. For most places, such as Lehi’s landing site, the river Sidon, Zarahemla, etc., he expressed equivocation, such as “it is believed that…” 

But for Cumorah, he expressed no equivocation. He stated affirmatively that “The hill Cumorah is in Manchester, Ontario County, N. York.”

These footnotes were published from 1879 until 1920, when they were removed. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that while most aspects of Book of Mormon geography were considered to be “an open question,” the New York Cumorah was definite.

Sheer survival was the chief concern of the Saints for the next generation. When, later in the nineteenth century, interest in Book of Mormon geography revived, Church leaders were careful not to let the Saints divide into camps on the question or to turn opinion into dogma. Elder George Q. Cannon, one of the intellectual forces of the Church at the time, said in 1890,

“There is a tendency, strongly manifested at the present time among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon…. The brethren who lecture on the lands of the Nephites have often been asked to prepare a suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles, who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a solution].” 6

Because I think it’s important to read President Cannon’s statement in full, I published it here: 
http://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2016/08/benefits-of-consensus-and-main.html

If you read it, you notice that he points out that “no two of [the brethren who lecture on the topic] are agreed on all points…. What is told us of the situation of the various lands… is usually simply an incidental remark… and almost invariably only extends to a statement of the relative position of some land or city to contiguous or surrounding places.”

President Cannon clearly explains the futility of trying to derive a so-called “abstract model” from the text alone. The information given is simply too vague. And yet, BYU/CES are teaching the youth exactly such an “abstract model” that repudiates the prophetic teachings about the New York Cumorah.

M2C proponents at BYU/CES justify their fantasy maps as “the closest fit” to the text, based on the consensus of scholars who are experts on the Book of Mormon. Of course, when the text is inherently vague as President Cannon pointed out, the only way to reach consensus is by imposing it by means of authority of some kind. This is what M2C is all about; imposing their dogma on others by asserting the superiority of their training, experience, and intellect.

Besides, and more importantly, President Cannon said nothing about Cumorah. Remember, while he was First Counselor in the First Presidency, the official edition of the Book of Mormon contained Pratt’s footnotes that speculated about the geography except for the New York Cumorah.

In another post, I pointed out that the other Counselor in the First Presidency at the time, Joseph F. Smith, republished Letter VII in the Improvement Era just 9 years after President Cannon made his statement about geography. 

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/02/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-5c.html

These Church leaders saw no inconsistency whatsoever between the certainty of the New York Cumorah and the uncertainty of everything else.

President Joseph F. Smith, Seventies President Anthony W. Ivins, and Apostle John A. Widtsoe were among later authorities who affirmed that the Church took no position on specific Book of Mormon locations. 

You’ll see below that contrary to Brother Sorenson’s claim, Presidents Smith and Ivins both reaffirmed the New York Cumorah. It was the other locations that the Church took no position upon.

President Smith, for instance, when asked to approve a map “showing the exact landing place of Lehi and his company,” declined, saying that the “Lord had not yet revealed it.” 7

Notice, he was not asked about Cumorah. You can see the actual quotation in context here:
https://archive.org/stream/instructor734dese#page/n7/mode/2up

The comment is in a note at the end of an article about the route traveled by Lehi. Here’s what it says:

“(Note. The present associate editor of The Instructor was one day in the office of the late President Joseph F. Smith when some brethren were asking him to approve a map showing the exact landing place of Lehi and his company. President Smith declined to officially approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it, and that if it were officially approved and afterwards found to be in error, it would affect the faith of the people.– Asst. Editor.)”

With this in mind, consider that the same President Joseph F. Smith republished Letter VII in the Improvement Era. Was he concerned then that the New York Cumorah would afterwards be found to be in error? Would he have republished Letter VII if he was? 

Of course not.

Elder Ivins cautioned in 1929, “There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles the question [of Book of Mormon geography]. So the Church says, yes, we are just waiting until we discover the truth.” 

This is the edited quotation that is perhaps the most misleading of all. 

Brother Sorenson is not the only one to use this quotation this way; it is also used this way by the M2C citation cartel, including FairMormon, BMAF, the Intepreter, etc. 

First, let’s read it in context. President Ivins of the First Presidency spoke in General Conference in April 1929. You can read the report here:
https://archive.org/stream/conferencereport1929a/conferencereport991chur#page/14/mode/2up

Here’s what he said.

“There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.”

Do you see the difference between what President Ivins actually said and how Brother Sorenson and the rest of the M2C citation cartel quote him?

He was not talking about “Book of Mormon geography” in the entirety; he was talking about the the city and land of Zarahemla and “other geographic matters.”

But he was not referring to Cumorah!

Notice his language. “definitely settles” and “definite solution.”

One year prior to this talk, President Ivins spoke in General Conference about the New York Hill Cumorah, which the Church had just purchased. He said the following facts were “definitely established:

“That the hill Cumorah, and the hill Ramah are identical. 

“That it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites fought their great last battles. 

“That it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his son, Moroni.

“We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them.”

Here, within one year, President Ivins of the First Presidency declares that 

(i) we know positively that the hill Cumorah in New York is the hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, and 

(ii)  the rest of the Book of Mormon geography remains a matter of individual study. 

The New York Cumorah is “definitely established,” just as much as the other locations are not “definitely settled.”

I discussed this talk here: http://www.lettervii.com/2017/01/the-hill-cumorah-by-president-anthony-w.html

The prophets have been consistent, explicit and clear regarding both the New York Cumorah and the uncertainty about the rest of the Book of Mormon locations.

That’s why any proposed geography that puts Cumorah somewhere else cannot possibly be correct. 

Knowing this, the M2C intellectuals and their followers conflate the two issues. They try to persuade Church members that uncertainty about the rest of Book of Mormon geography extends also to Cumorah, but in so doing, they are repudiating the prophets.

This caution has been the consistent course followed ever since, leaving individuals free to examine and study the topic without getting Church authorities into the predicament of having to defend or refute someone’s personal viewpoint.

This is another key point, but not in the way Brother Sorenson intends. The “consistent course” is a firm pin in the map–the New York Cumorah–with complete neutrality about all other locations. 
_____

By insisting that the location of Cumorah is as unknown and speculative as the rest of Book of Mormon geography, the M2C intellectuals and their followers have put Church authorities in the predicament of having to 

(i) stay silent and let the words of their predecessors stand without additional comment, 

(ii) reiterate yet again the words of their predecessors and thereby refute the personal viewpoints of the M2C intellectuals and their followers, or 

(iii) agree with the M2C intellectuals, repudiate the words of their predecessors, and thereby refute not only past prophets and apostles but all the Latter-day Saints who believe the teachings of those prophets and apostles.
_____

I think the M2C intellectuals and their followers have done and are continuing to do tremendous harm by putting Church leaders and members in the position of questioning the clear, unambiguous and consistent teachings of the prophets and apostles about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

This is why the M2C evidence has to be overwhelming and conclusive before we outright repudiate the prophets and conclude that they have been wrong.   

Even from so brief an overview as this, it becomes clear that Church authorities from the time of Joseph Smith to the present have come to no consensus, made no authoritative statement, and reported no definitive solution to the question of Book of Mormon geography. 

That’s an outright false statement to the extent it includes the New York Cumorah.

Yet the problem has never seemed insoluble to them, only difficult. Elder Widtsoe felt that “out of diligent, prayerful study, we may be led to a better understanding of times and places in the history fo the people who move across the pages of the divinely given Book of Mormon.” No, the Church authorities have not settled for us any of the major issues concerning the setting of the Book of Mormon. We must search elsewhere for answers. 

Unless Brother Sorenson doesn’t think the location of Cumorah is a major issue, he was either oblivious of what Church leaders have taught about the New York Cumorah, or his confirmation bias has blinded him to those teachings.

Either way, he has articulated here the basic M2C position: we should trust the scholars, not the prophets.

And the same claim is made by all the M2C intellectuals and their followers, including FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, BMAF, BYU Studies, etc.

As well as BYU, CES, etc.
_____

Confirmation bias is a powerful psychological filter even when we’re aware of it, and we all naturally tend to ignore information that contradicts our biases. Usually we don’t even want to know about such information. Studies have shown that when people are faced with information that contradicts their biases, they find ways to rationalize it away, such as by questioning the legitimacy of the information, its source, or its relevance.

But the problem with M2C, as demonstrated by Brother Sorenson’s highly influential book, is not merely confirmation bias.

M2C intellectuals have made a concerted, determined, and persistent effort to hide and suppress contradictory information that supports the teachings of the prophets. 

If that sounds like crazy conspiracy talk, think a moment. Can you say that you learned about Letter VII at BYU or in CES?

I have yet to meet a single graduate from BYU/CES who was familiar with Letter VII before I told them about it (or before they read my books and blogs).

Most BYU/CES employees I’ve discussed this with had never heard of it before. Those few who have known about it immediately dismissed it as the product of ignorant speculation on the part of Oliver Cowdery.

In this post I have shown how Brother Sorenson set the table for M2C with a misleading presentation of Church history and the teachings of Church leaders. 

All the M2C intellectuals have followed this approach. That’s how we end up with displays of M2C on Temple Square, media images of M2C everywhere, fantasy maps at BYU and CES, etc.

In the next few weeks, we’ll evaluate the evidence to see whether it is so overpoweringly conclusive that all members of the Church should repudiate the prophets the way the M2C intellectuals have.

And we’ll see that, to the contrary, the evidence actually supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Today in the Church, there is tremendous confusion over the very keystone of our religion.

On one hand, we have the consistent, explicit, and oft-repeated teachings of the prophets and apostles that the hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6) is in New York.

On the other hand, we have the consistent, explicit and oft-repeated teachings of the intellectuals that the hill Cumorah cannot be in New York, because of M2C (Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

These teachings are being actively imposed on students at BYU/CES, while the teachings of the prophets is completely suppressed.

When he accepted his party’s nomination for U.S. Senator in 1858, Abraham Lincoln gave his famous speech in which he said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

He was invoking Matthew 12:25. “25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

Lincoln, of course, was referring to the slavery question. He went on to say, “I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

I think this is true also of the Church. I expect it will cease to be divided, one way or another. The question is, will we as members side with the prophets, or with the intellectuals?

The perennial problem was well described by Hugh Nibley:

Once the true prophet has been duly rejected and passed to his reward, swarms of experts descend upon his words to begin the learned business of exegesis. The words of the dead prophets become the peculiar possession of armies of specially trained and carefully conditioned scholars. 

In a very old text, Peter is reported as saying in a letter to James regarding the use of his own writings in the church: “They think they are able to interpret my own words better than I can, telling their hearers that they are conveying my very thoughts to them, while the fact is that such things never entered my mind. If they take such outrageous liberties while I am alive, what will they do after I am gone!”

Nibley, “Prophets and Scholars,” https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1103&index=5

It is amazing to watch this process unfold in today’s LDS Church. We have intellectuals at BYU/CES who, to confirm their M2C bias, have “duly rejected” the teachings of LDS prophets and are now telling students that they weren’t speaking as prophets anyway.

They were merely “expressing their opinions,” and, of course, they were “wrong” because today’s intellectuals know better.

I’m continually surprised that so many LDS people side with the intellectuals. In many cases, it’s innocent; many Church members don’t even know what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. The intellectuals in the Church have been diligent and persistent in suppressing the truth.

They’ve also approached this with great expertise. They’ve reframed the issue as not a question about believing and following the prophets, but instead judging the prophets and deciding that they never actually taught that Cumorah was in New York, or if they did, it was merely their incorrect opinion.

That depends on how many members of the Church choose to follow them instead of the prophets.

In this post, I’m going to agree with Brother Sorenson that the pursuit of a realistic setting for the Book of Mormon is an important and worthwhile endeavor.

I’m also going to disagree with his approach by showing how prominent, well-known LDS intellectuals have created tremendous and unnecessary confusion among LDS people and potential investigators because they have rejected the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. 

I’m focusing on Brother Sorenson’s book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, because this book has been, and continues to be, highly influential. It is the guidebook for promoters of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). To this day, they accept the assumptions set forth in Brother Sorenson’s book. These assumptions established the bias that M2C intellectuals and their followers continually seek to confirm.

I start with the Preface.

“The task of establishing a realistic setting for the Book of Mormon is a big, challenging one.” Sorenson, p. xvi. [All quotations in this post are from this book unless otherwise noted.]

The challenging nature of this task is evident in the number of settings that have been proposed over the years. But the benefits of establishing a realistic setting outweigh the costs, provided we heed the prophets in the process.

“Biblical scholarship has illuminated that scriptural text by showing the interplay between human and divine influences and establishing the Bible as a record all the more profound because it is anchored in a complex reality of time, space and behavior. I have sought the same illumination for Lehi’s people and their book.” xvi.

Brother Sorenson next points out that we have a pretty good idea of where Lehi went when he left Jerusalem. “But the minute the party climb into Nephi’s ship and launch their journey into the Indian Ocean, we lost that sense of concreteness. Landed in the New World, they are just vaguely ‘somewhere.’ Until recently, after 150 years since the Nephite record was first published by Joseph Smith, we had neglected to pin down the location of a single city, to identify confidently even one route the people of the volume traversed, or to sketch a believable picture of any segment of the life they lived in their American promised land. In many respects, the Book of Mormon remains a sealed book to us because we have failed to do the work necessary to place it in its setting.” xvii.

The last sentence is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I agree with Brother Sorenson that we haven’t done enough work on the Book of Mormon, but I disagree in the sense that the prophets have put a pin in the map: the New York Cumorah. Brother Sorenson simply disregards what the prophets and apostles have said about that.

He continues: “Two major advantages would result from doing so. First, the Latter-day Saints themselves could grasp the message of the scripture with greater power, because the events and people would become more believable.” 

I completely agree with this, but paradoxically, Brother Sorenson’s insistence on repudiating the prophets makes both the text–and the prophets–less believable. It surprises me that he seems to overlook this obvious point. It surprises me even more that other M2C intellectuals remain blind to the impact of their dogma. I attribute it to confirmation bias, of course, and while that’s an explanation for what they’re doing, it’s no justification.

“Second, the significance of the volume could be communicated more forcefully to others, who at present hold the Book of Mormon at arm’s length, judging that it lacks reality and substance.”

Letters by Oliver Cowdery, 1844

That is a tremendous insight that the early Apostles understood. The British missions in the 1830s and 1840s were highly successful, partly because they linked the Book of Mormon to the real world. Parley P. Pratt published President Cowdery’s eight historical letters in the first eight issues of the Millennial Star. He published Letter VII in October 1840. There was no question in the minds of the early leaders of the Church that Cumorah was in New York, and they used this fact to convey the reality and substance of the Book of Mormon to their investigators in England. In fact, the demand for President Cowdery’s letters was so great that they published them as a separate booklet in 1844.

At the end of his year in England, Brigham Young reported that they had baptized 5,000 converts after distributing just 3,000 copies of the Book of Mormon (plus the Millennial Star and other publications). By that standard, since there are over 150 million copies of the Book of Mormon in print today (plus electronic versions), there should be 200 million or more Latter-day Saints in the world. Instead, we baptize only around 300,000 a year, and the total membership of fewer than 17 million is less than 10% of what it should be, based on the standards of the British mission.

Why?

There are lots of answers that I’ve addressed elsewhere, but for purposes of this post, it seems obvious that the M2C insistence on repudiating the prophets about the New York Cumorah is a tremendous burden on missionaries and a largely insurmountable impediment for investigators who sincerely want to know if the Book of Mormon is true. That’s why only around 300,000 people are baptized every year instead of 3 million, or 30 million.

Reiterating what the prophets and apostles have consistently taught would make a dramatic difference for members and investigators, for all the reasons Brother Sorenson mentions in the quotation above.

“Apathy on the part of the Saints could rob us of both benefits. 

Surely apathy is a perennial problem, but even worse is outright rejection of the prophets.

One hears from some of them that we don’t really need any more explication or illumination of scripture than we already have, that the Spirit is guide enough. I am in good company–people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young–in believing that God’s purpose can be aided by our exertions to illuminated the meaning of the scriptures. How ironic it would prove if the Latter-day Saints themselves were to reject further light and knowledge about the Nephite record.”

When I read these observations, I wonder whether Brother Sorenson is writing tongue-in-cheek. In the LDS community, the phrase “further light and knowledge” usually refers revelation or messages from prophets and apostles. The real irony of the last sentence in the quotation is that Brother Sorenson and all the other M2C intellectuals have specifically rejected the further light and knowledge given to us by the prophets and apostles; i.e., the knowledge that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.

Brother Sorenson apparently expects us to obtain “further light and knowledge” not from the prophets but from the scholars–the self-appointed gods of this world. I don’t see that working out very well. And, certainly, the M2C dogma has caused far more confusion than illumination of the scriptures.

Brother Sorenson does a nice job describing the impact of confirmation bias. “Various readers will judge in different ways the materials and argument that will be presented below. Those who are already inclined to accept will conclude that the parallels constitute overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, while more skeptical minds will chalk up the same parallels to faulty data, or to a series of misinterpretations on my part, or to mere coincidence…. There can be no supreme court on this matter. Each individual has to hold his or her own trial. The scripture itself insists that it can be tested by each reader: ‘Ask God… if these things are not true; and … he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.’ (Moroni 10:4)…. My subjective views about the Book of Mormon and the culture area with which I shall compare it of course influenced what I have written here. Without a lively interest in both the area and the scripture, I would never have invested the substantial effort even to make the comparison.”

It is impressive that Brother Sorenson so readily admits his bias. That’s one of the reasons I respect him and admire his work. Many other M2C intellectuals–and especially their followers–actually believe they have some degree of objectivity. Such a belief is delusional. It is human nature–basic psychology–for people to confirm their biases.

If everyone involved with the discussion and debate about Book of Mormon geography would simply admit and declare their biases, we’d be a long ways closer to resolution than we are now. And even if people retain their views and biases, at least observers could decide which bias they have and choose accordingly.

Then we would have two “realistic settings” for the Book of Mormon that correspond to the respective biases.

1. If you accept the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, you accept the North American setting, which I refer to as Moroni’s America (MA), similar to the Heartland model.

2. If you reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, you accept the Mesoamerica/two-Cumorahs setting (M2C). 

(Actually, if you reject the teachings of the prophets you could also accept the Baja, Peru, Chile, Panama, or any number of other settings, but M2C is by far the predominant one among LDS intellectuals and their followers at BYU/CES/Church History Department, etc. The fantasy BYU/CES maps are merely a ruse to teach M2C without placing the events in any “real-world” setting.)
_____

As honorable as it is for Brother Sorenson to admit his confirmation bias, he unfortunately confirms his bias by hiding critical information from his readers, as I’ll show in tomorrow’s post.

The genealogy of ideas gives us unexpected insights into current thinking.

Few Church members realize the Ensign itself published the foundations for  M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). This brought M2C into the mainstream and gave cover for M2C intellectuals to openly defy the prophets and apostles. It helps explain why BYU/CES and other Church employees are so deeply invested in M2C, and why they refuse to look at the evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets and apostles regarding the New York Cumorah.

We need to start by taking another look at John L. Sorenson’s book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, because of his useful observations about evidence and framing the M2C argument. The book was originally published in 1985, which is ancient history for today’s students and young LDS who were born long after 1985. It might as well be 1885 for them. And yet, this book, along with David Palmer’s In Search of Cumorah, laid the foundation for everything the M2C intellectuals and their followers believe.

Including today’s teenagers and 20-something BYU/CES students.

I again emphasize that I have great respect for Brother Sorenson; I acknowledged him in Moroni’s America as a major–and positive–contributor to the study of the Book of Mormon. Although I disagree with his premises and arguments in many respects, his practical, real-world approach to understanding the text has been highly influential on me and thousands of other Latter-day Saints.

The Preface to the book gives some background that I think most readers will be interested in. Quoted material in blue, my comments in red, as usual.

The knowledge in this book would have waited longer to appear and would have taken another form without the urging and assistance of particular people. By 1974 I had worked on the relation of the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerican geography and cultural data for twenty-five years but had been reluctant to impose my views on the public or my colleagues. Anyone who dedicates 25 years on a specific theory has a heavy investment in that theory. By the time the book was published, Brother Sorenson had invested another 10 years on this project. To infer that Brother Sorenson has a bias in favor of M2C is an understatement. That said, he is undoubtedly sincere when he says he was reluctant to impose his views on others. That is a characteristic of his that I observed in my few interactions with him, and it’s one reason why I like and respect him. I don’t think Brother Sorenson ever intended to have the extent of influence he has had. 

David A. Palmer urged me at that point to prepare a paper exploring and documenting my position; he offered to circulate it privately for comment to a selected group, along with a paper taking a different position. Brother Palmer, of course, wrote the book In Search of Cumorah that I have addressed in part before. Here we see again that Brother Sorenson was not pushing his ideas on others. 

Palmer and others became convinced from the interchange of comments that my material should be better known, so he prevailed upon staff members from several LDS Church offices to listen. In the fall of 1975 we met one afternoon each week, and I presented in some detail a version of what is in this book. This is quite significant. I’ve been explaining for some time how it is staff members at Church headquarters who are pushing M2C through media, curriculum, visitors centers, etc. Here we see how that process works: regular staff meetings with the intellectuals. Today, the situation is both remarkably the same and remarkably different. 

Church staff employees still meet regularly with intellectuals who promote the M2C agenda. However, there appears to be zero interest on the part of Church staff in learning about, let alone meeting with, members of the Church who still support what the prophets and apostles have said about the New York Cumorah and its ramifications. The tide began shifting around 1975. 

Ironically, it was the 1975 October General Conference when President Marion G. Romney delivered his strikingly specific address about the New York Cumorah, reaffirming what President Cowdery taught in Letter VII. Three years later, Elder Mark E. Petersen reiterated the New York Cumorah in the 1978 October General Conference. So far as I can tell, the topic has not been addressed since, at least not in General Conference. We could say that, given the consistency and specifics of the teaching about the New York Cumorah from 1835 through 1978, there is no need to keep repeating it.

Another view would be that the fascination of Church staff regarding Brother Sorenson’s work has spread throughout the Church, as the rest of the Preface suggests.

Jay Todd, managing editor of the Ensign, who was a participant in those sessions, then invited me to prepare a series of articles for the Church magazine. 

Here’s another indication of the sea change in approach. The Ensign is the first major official Church publication to have never published Letter VII. Apart from General Conference reports, I don’t know of any Ensign articles that inform the Saints about what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah. To the contrary, the Ensign has repeatedly portrayed the Book of Mormon as having taken place in Mesoamerica. To the extent the Church has a neutrality policy on Book of Mormon geography, the Ensign has not followed that policy.

He and his staff (especially Lavina Fielding Anderson and Lane Johnson) worked at length to improve what I produced. Without editor Todd’s continued faith in the importance of our project, I would not have persisted. Again, Brother Sorenson expresses his admirable reticence to publicize his views. 

Ensign, Sept 1984

Ensign, Oct 1984

Not until 1983 did our attempts to phrase the material in terms acceptable for publication in the Ensign come to an unsuccessful [sic] end. 

I don’t know if this is a typo, but Brother Sorenson’s articles appeared in the September and October 1984 Ensigns. 

Click on those links or the images of the covers to see the articles on lds.org.
_____

Let’s digress a moment from Brother Sorenson’s book to see how the Ensign articles brought M2C into the mainstream.

The September article featured this map of Mesoamerica.

Map in September 1984 Ensign

Notice how closely the current BYU Studies map (below) resembles Brother Sorenson’s Ensign map. It’s not a coincidence.

The September 1984 article made this claim:

Map on current BYU Studies home page

A substantive discussion of geography cannot be given in these limited pages. However, for at least the past forty years, many students of the subject who have studied it in depth have reached similar basic conclusions: (1) the events reported by Nephite and Jaredite scribes evidently covered only a limited territory in the New World “land of promise,” and (2) there is presently known only one location in the Western Hemisphere that seems qualify as that scene.

These are very important points.

That’s for sure; these are very, very important points.

They drive the entire M2C narrative.

If we break it down, the statement emphasizes the length of study (40 years), the expertise (studied it in depth), and the supposed consensus of the experts (reached similar basic conclusions).

These are all classic elements of confirmation bias. They are designed to persuade readers to agree with the consensus; i.e., you readers who have different ideas have not studied this topic for 40 years, and if you have you haven’t studied it “in depth,” and if so, you haven’t reached “the same basic conclusions as the experts” so you’re still wrong.

Anyone who has had an exchange with an M2C proponent knows how that goes.

The second point, though, is even more important. This is the claim that only Mesoamerica “qualifies” as the scene of the Book of Mormon.

By now, readers of this blog and my books know that this claim is pure confirmation bias based on circular reasoning. The process works like this.

1. M2C scholars originally thought they were vindicating what they thought Joseph Smith taught about Central America in the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles. Everyone knows those articles were ridiculous; they described ruins that post-dated the Book of Mormon and sites that couldn’t possibly work (such as Quirigua). But it is the very absurdity of the articles that makes them so popular with the M2C intellectuals. In their minds, the anonymous articles proved that Joseph Smith (i) was an ignorant speculator who changed his views over time and who, therefore, (ii) expected secular scholarship to eventually figure out Book of Mormon geography. IOW, this false narrative about Joseph’s authorship exalted the scholars over the prophets–exactly where the scholars wanted to be, and where they are today.

This narrative is the reason why today’s BYU/CES educators have no problem repudiating the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

2. With the assumed blessing of Joseph Smith, the M2C scholars established an imaginary set of criteria that described Central America–specifically, Mesoamerica. Thus, the premise assumes the result that all these years of training and study and analysis purport to seek.

3. Ever since, as this Ensign article demonstrates, the M2C scholars have used these imaginary criteria to exclude any setting that’s not Mesoamerica.

Circular reasoning appears logically valid because the conclusion always follows the premise. The fallacy arises because the premise is designed to support the conclusion. IOW, the conclusion is used as the premise. With M2C, the premise (the “criteria”) are first established to fit Mesoamerica. Then the criteria are used to show that the “only plausible location” for the Book of Mormon is Mesoamerica.

It’s a transparent farce, but it works because of confirmation bias, combined with the complicity of the followers of the M2C intellectuals, who are just as eager to reject the prophets as are the M2C intellectuals themselves.
_____

The article continues:

On the basis of my own research, I conclude with others that only one area qualifies in all respects—Mesoamerica…. So, focusing on data primarily from the Mesoamerican area, let us now look at the Book of Mormon alongside the best information available on civilization and geography there.

Brother Sorenson adds his personal conviction to the case he established by citing his colleagues, all of whom agree with him. While this Ensign article may not have been the first work of the citation cartel, it was definitely an influential one. Among others, Brother Sorenson cites David Palmer–the same Brother Palmer who encouraged Brother Sorenson to publish his work in the first place..

Knowing that Brother Sorenson had spent 35 years working on the connections between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon, it is not surprising he would reach his conclusion. But it is at least somewhat surprising that the Ensign would endorse his views to the point of excluding alternative views–an editorial approach that persists to this day.

Nowhere does the article quote or allude to the prophets and apostles who have spoken about the New York Cumorah. It does address the point obliquely, however:

Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. 

Taking a “fresh look” is a euphemism for ignoring–and repudiating–the prophets and apostles who have specifically identified the “New York hill” as the literal Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. The prophets have warned that rejecting their words will lead to confusion and doubt. But look at this next sentence, which raises doubts specifically because it rejects the words of the prophets.

For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land”11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light. 

Here we have the development of M2C, right in the pages of the Ensign.

Contrary to the claim in the Ensign, the Book of Mormon sheds plenty of light; Mormon said the battles took place at the hill Cumorah, a place in the midst of “many waters,” which describes western New York perfectly. Plus, Moroni told Joseph Smith that the hill where the plates were was named Cumorah. That should settle it, but in addition, Joseph and Oliver together visited the depository of Nephite records in the same hill Cumorah in New York. Oliver specifically invoked Mormon 6:6 in Letter VII.

But the M2C intellectuals don’t care. They’d rather figure this out on their own, using their own experience and expertise, because they exalt scholarship over prophets, as they always have. And once we repudiate the prophets, we’re on our own. Hence, we have such speculation as the next sentences:

One obvious possibility is that Moroni himself may have carried the records to New York during his thirty-six years of wandering between the extermination of the Nephites and when he last wrote on the plates. (See Morm. 6:6; Moro. 1:1–4; Moro. 10:1.) Or he may have taken them there as a resurrected being. We only know that, whatever the means, in 1827 the plates were in the “hill of considerable size” near young Joseph Smith’s home at Palmyra, New York, where Moroni delivered the sacred record to him.

Do you see how this Ensign article established what has now become “the consensus view” that the prophets and apostles were all wrong, leaving us to speculate and guess how the events Mormon, Moroni and Joseph Smith described could have possibly taken place?

For those of us who still believe the prophets and apostles, these questions are foolish. The prophets have already given us the answers. But to M2C intellectuals who have convinced themselves the prophets and apostles are wrong, these questions persist. Their repudiation of the prophets erodes the faith of the people. These foolish questions deter investigators. And they cause the youth to question the prophets and apostles about other topics as well.

Let’s look at footnote 11 from the paragraph above.

11. Consider the following reasoning: (1) The Cumorah of the Nephites and the Ramah of the Jaredites were the same hill (Ether 15:11). (2) This area, covered with bones (Omni 1:22; Mosiah 8:8; Mosiah 21:26–27; etc.) and also a “land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Morm. 6:4; Ether 15:8), was in the land of Desolation, which bordered on the land Bountiful at the narrow neck of land (Alma 22:29–32). (3) In Mormon 3 through 6, it becomes clear that the final battles of the Nephites were localized, centering largely in the general area of the city of Desolation, which was in the land of Desolation “by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Morm. 3:5, 7). (4) And therefore, according to this reasoning, Cumorah, the final battlefield of the Nephites and Lamanites, was near the narrow neck of land.

This footnote demonstrates another circular argument. A basic premise of M2C dogma is that the “narrow neck of land” is the same as the “narrow neck,” the “small neck,” the “narrow pass,” and the “narrow passage.” That’s how you get a claim that Alma 22 refers to the “narrow neck of land.” You can look it up. The phrase does not appear in those verses, but every M2C scholar you speak to believes it does. (I usually ask if they are using the Sorenson translation. They all are, but they don’t realize it until I point it out.) In the actual text of the Book of Mormon, the “narrow neck of land” appears exactly once (in Ether 10:20).

The M2C intellectuals conflate these terms because they need an hourglass shape to support their belief that only Mesoamerica “qualifies” as a “plausible” setting for the Book of Mormon.

BYU’s fantasy map with mandatory M2C hourglass shape

After much experience with M2C intellectuals and their followers, I’ve observed that they are so deeply brainwashed that they can’t even imagine a scenario in which Mormon used different terms for different geographic features. 

Try it yourself. Ask one of them. You’ll soon discover that they all conflate these terms, because that’s the only way to derive an hourglass shape.

BTW, that’s also why you see the hourglass in the fantasy maps BYU/CES are inflicting on their students.

In case you’re wondering how Mesoamerica fits when the narrow section of the Mesoamerican hourglass is an east/west orientation as opposed to the BYU/CES fantasy map’s north/south orientation, Brother Sorenson explains that the Nephites didn’t really understand cardinal directions. When they wrote “north” they really meant “90 degrees from the coastline” because they supposedly landed on a south facing coast of Guatemala, making west the same as north. If that sounds crazy, don’t worry. They have an elaborate justification for it.

Except some of the M2C intellectuals disagree, of course. That’s what the conclave in Springville (home of Book of Mormon Central) is supposed to sort out.

By repudiating the prophets, the M2C intellectuals have made a complete hash of Book of Mormon geography, as the confusion over how Moroni got the plates to New York all the way from Mesoamerica exemplifies.

Enough of the Ensign articles. Read them yourself and count how many logical fallacies you can find. And notice how cleverly the teachings of the prophets and apostles are ignored and repudiated.

Let’s turn back to the Preface.
_____

By then about 1,500 photocopies of the manuscript of an earlier version of the book had been circulating to people who had heard about it from friends. It was one of these photocopies that I worked on, as I’ve discussed before. I think I still have it in my papers somewhere. I was fully enthralled with M2C at this point. It seemed clear that publication as a book would meet a widespread need. I’m intrigued by the term “need” here. Demand, maybe, just because people always want something new. But maybe need is the correct term, after all. Throughout history, people have always sought a reason to reject the prophets. Among Latter-day Saints, rejecting the prophets was traditionally frowned upon, to say the least. But M2C has opened the door to making it optional for members of the Church to accept the prophets and apostles. I call it the gateway drug. Now, according to our BYU/CES faculty, any time the prophets and apostles disagree with what the intellectuals teach, you don’t have to believe the prophets and apostles.

This, really, is the biggest problem with M2C. It’s not only about geography. It’s about the credibility and reliability of the prophets and apostles in general.  

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS] determined in 1983 to publish the book. John Welch and Kirk Magleby have been strong supporters of that decision and have helped substantially with arrangements. 

Here I need to point out that now, in 2018, Brothers Welch and Magleby are still the ringleaders of M2C. This means 35 years of promoting M2C just since they decided to publish Brother Sorenson’s book. 

I really like them personally and I respect them for the awesome work they’ve done on so many aspects of Book of Mormon research. But, in my view, they have caused tremendous damage by their adamant promotion of M2C.

Brother Welch is the Editor-in-Chief of BYU Studies. He is also Chairman and Co-Founder of Book of Mormon Central (BOMC). Brother Magleby is the Executive Director of BOMC. Both BYU Studies and BOMC strongly promote M2C and exclude alternative ideas. Both repudiate the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah, relying on the same circular reasoning that Brother Sorenson outlined in the Ensign articles.  

Actually, everyone at BOMC takes this approach. Some of them are also responsible for the BYU fantasy map. You can see the participants here: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/directory
_____

I have gone through all of this analysis to show how carefully the groundwork has been laid. The M2C proponents have worked diligently and patiently for decades to get to the point where M2C is at the tipping point of completely repudiating the prophets and apostles. 

It is no longer just a handful of M2C intellectuals who are promoting these ideas. The M2C intellectuals have educated thousands of Latter-day Saints throughout the Church. They have suppressed knowledge about Letter VII, its context, and its long-lasting corroboration by prophets and apostles.

At this point, I know of only a few BYU/CES/Church headquarters staff who still believe the prophets and apostles. And they are reluctant to speak out.

But to guard against the dangers of confirmation bias, we need to consider the possibility that maybe the M2C intellectuals are right.

Maybe the scholars really should be exalted above the prophets and apostles…

Okay, I’ve considered that.

Actually, I followed that course for decades. I read FARMS publications, attended seminars, visited Mesoamerican sites, etc. I fully accepted M2C. But finally, when I learned what the prophets have actually taught, I came to my senses and saw through the logical fallacies that M2C is built upon.

I think M2C is a foolish course to follow, both individually and institutionally.

So, no thanks. I’m sticking with what the prophets and apostles have taught. I’d do that even if the evidence wasn’t so overwhelmingly in favor of the New York Cumorah.
_____

Finally, the last part of the Preface.

Others are thanked for laying a basis for Deseret Book Company’s enthusiastic participation as joint publisher with F.A.R.M.S.

Deseret Book is another topic for another day, but you can look through their publications and see they are purely M2C. To their credit, they do carry some non-M2C materials in their stores, at least.
…..
Of course, the views expressed are strictly my own and do not claim to represent those of Brigham Young University, where I work, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or Deseret Book Company.

This is true of everyone who writes on his/her own, of course, but I’m less concerned about whether Brother Sorenson represents the views of those organizations than I am about whether his views have influenced those organizations. Fortunately, FARMS is no longer. But it has resurfaced with a vengeance as the equally dogmatic M2C promoter called Book of Mormon Central. Except this time it claims the false facade of “neutrality” that far too many people have been taken in by. I’ve shown before that their real mission is “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex,” and they’re not about to stop that any time soon.

All royalties from sales of the book go to the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies to continue scriptural research.

This noble statement deserves more comment than I have time for right now.
_____

Maybe another time we’ll look at the Introduction to Brother Sorenson’s book.

🙂

I’ve often wondered how I was deceived* for so long by M2C (Mesoamerica/two-Cumorahs theory). I learned it in seminary as a high-school student, but we accepted pretty much everything our Seminary teachers taught us back then because, frankly, we were more interested in other things during high school.

That hasn’t changed, of course, although the Internet has enabled high school students to discover for themselves that their Seminary curriculum isn’t telling them what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. Plenty of them use google, which takes them to sites such as this:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

I was also taught M2C at BYU, where I had a Freshman Honors class with John Sorenson. FARMS was in full M2C mode, of course. There was really no viable option at the time; you either accepted M2C or you were ignorant and probably didn’t really believe in the Book of Mormon.

The strange thing is, no one talked about what the prophets taught.

We all know that people who leave–or decline to investigate–the Church cite a lack of openness about Church history as one of the top reasons for their decision.

What other conclusion can they reach when even BYU/CES students are being deliberately misled about the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah?

It’s not only BYU/CES. The Church History Department is perpetuating the M2C dogma, as I’ve shown in the notes in the Joseph Smith Papers and the displays in the Visitors Centers. Undoubtedly, M2C will appear in the new Church history volumes as well.

The M2C intellectuals justify themselves by citing “evidence” that to any non-M2C believer is transparent confirmation bias, which makes this all the worse. BYU/CES students are defenseless against this onslaught because they trust their teachers. The teachers very effectively mingle spiritual insights and lessons with their M2C dogma, enabling the students to swallow M2C whole.

In that sense, then, maybe I shouldn’t assess the illusory nature of the M2C “evidence” and the logical fallacies used by the M2C proponents. I don’t want anyone to question their faith about the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon and it’s authenticity as an ancient record of real people just because they discover their professors deceived them with M2C. We don’t want people throwing the baby out with the bath water, etc.

But I think the greater danger is not exposing M2C for what it is. 

As long as BYU/CES continue to repudiate the prophets and teach M2C based on illusory evidence that works only because of confirmation bias, more people are likely to throw the baby out with the bath water when they realize they’ve been deceived by the very BYU/CES teachers they trusted.

If we ever get to the point where BYU/CES teachers embrace, instead of repudiate, the teachings of the prophets and apostles about Cumorah, we’ll find a dramatic increase in acceptance of and enthusiasm about the Book of Mormon, both in the Church and among investigators.

So let’s get started.
_____

Before addressing the evidence specifically, I need to provide context. As I pointed out before, the book In Search of Cumorah dismissed Letter VII with a brief footnote.

Another influential M2C book

John Sorenson’s influential book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, doesn’t even mention Letter VII. He conflates the issue of Cumorah (which all of Joseph’s contemporaries agreed was in New York because of Letter VII) with the diverse early opinions about the rest of the geography, which even the proponents at the time admitted was speculative.

And note this: neither Joseph nor Oliver ever engaged in that speculation. Joseph specifically taught that the “remnant are the Indians that now live in this country” and that the Midwest was the “plains of the Nephites,”** but beyond that neither of them clearly identified any sites other than Cumorah.***

While ignoring the consistent teachings about the New York Cumorah, Brother Sorenson cites the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles as evidence that the early brethren relied on secular scholarship–that self-serving academic argument that we still get today from the M2C citation cartel.

I’ll address Brother Sorenson’s book in detail later, but for now, here’s how he explained Cumorah:

“Let’s review where the final battle took place. The Book of Mormon makes clear that the demise of both Jaredites and Nephites took place near the narrow neck of land. Yet New York is thousands of miles away from any plausible configuration that could be described as this narrow neck. Thus the scripture itself rules out the idea that the Nephites perished near Palmyra.” (page 44).

This fallacy of this argument–it is circular reasoning, starting with the premise it seeks to prove–is obvious to me now, but when I was a freshman at BYU, I found this type of rhetoric persuasive.

Especially when I didn’t realize Brother Sorenson was repudiating the prophets!

Right there, on page 44, Brother Sorenson is telling us that the two men who wrote and published and re-published Letter VII–Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery–contradicted the very Book of Mormon that they translated, transcribed, and published to the world. It is pure academic arrogance to assume that today, because we have PhDs and LiDAR, we know more about the Book of Mormon than the men who handled the plates, were taught by angels, visited the depository of Nephite records and artifacts, and identified the scene of the final battles, which they said was a fact.

It’s possible that when I was a student at BYU no one knew that Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Letter VII into his personal history, the volume now known as History, 1834-1836, that he kept with him until he died. It’s possible no one knew how frequently Letter VII was republished during Joseph’s lifetime and afterward. Maybe people didn’t even know what Brigham Young and others taught about the depository in the New York hill that Joseph, Oliver and others entered multiple times.

In retrospect, though, I think the M2C scholars knew more about Letter VII and the New York Cumorah than they admitted to their readers and students. After all, in 1975 and 1978, the New York Cumorah was unambiguously reaffirmed in General Conference as the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites.

I don’t know whether or how FARMS responded to President Romney and Elder Petersen, but if they did, I assume they simply dismissed these prophets and apostles as ignorant speculators who were misleading the Church with their personal (and incorrect) opinions. At least, that’s how they are characterizing them now.

And make no mistake. Today’s BYU/CES teachers are fully aware of Letter VII, its context, its legacy, and the supporting evidence.

They just choose to repudiate the prophets because they prefer their own M2C interpretation.
_____

What about today’s students? With all we now know, how are they so easily persuaded to repudiate the prophets about the Hill Cumorah?

Historically, the aphorism applied: if historians/scholars one can keep just one generation in darkness on a given subject, then their work is done for all succeeding generations. But the Internet has changed that. And, despite the M2C commentary, at least the Joseph Smith Papers give people access to original sources, such as Letter VII, if they look for them.

I wonder if I would have been as easily duped by the M2C intellectuals today as I was back when I attended BYU. I suppose if I was only reading what the M2C citation cartel published, I probably would be. The M2C citation cartel are going all out to protect their dogma from scrutiny and exposure, which I’ll be documenting soon.

But there’s another important weapon that the M2C intellectuals wield.

For a college student, the siren call of the intellectuals is alluring. You show up on campus at BYU (or in any Institute) and now you can learn from the real experts. No more simple Sunday School lessons, read from a manual. No more relying on what your parents told you.

Now you get the real stuff.

From approved, popular, and well-known professors.

And it’s all “evidence-based” knowledge!

BYU fantasy map of the Book of Mormon

You go to your required Book of Mormon class, Religion A 121 or 122. Your professor uses the fantasy map to “help you understand” the text.

He/she tells you this map matches “the approximately 550 geography descriptions in the text as closely as possible.” The message: other interpretations don’t match the text.

You are familiar with the fantasy map because you learned basically the same map in Seminary, so you don’t question anything.

You’ve been well indoctrinated, but now, at the university level, you’re being prepared for life.

Your BYU/CES professor is making sure this interpretation of the text is imprinted on your mind for the rest of your life.

You will go on a mission. You will teach classes in Church. Maybe even in CES or at BYU. Maybe you will someday work for the Church.

BYU Studies map

Wherever you go, you will promulgate the M2C dogma. 

Maybe your professor produces the BYU Studies map of Mesoamerica. (I’ve been told recently by BYU students who are currently taking the Book of Mormon class that their professors showed them maps of Mesoamerica in addition to the fantasy map. Supposedly the BYU Administration has told faculty not to use any real-world maps, but apparently it is more important to teach M2C than to comply with University policy.)

CES fantasy map of the Book of Mormon

How do the BYU/CES professors get away with this?

Mainly by never telling the students what the prophets have taught.

I’ve been told by BYU professors that they don’t use any teachings of the prophets and apostles that are more than 30 years old (which conveniently lets them avoid the General Conference talks from the 1970s), except for what can be found in the manuals Teachings of the Presidents of the Church. But since those manuals have edited out everything that contradicts M2C, students are never taught the truth about Cumorah.

Unless they do their own research on the Internet.

As I wrote at the outset, we all know that people who leave–or decline to investigate–the Church cite a lack of openness about Church history as one of the top reasons for their decision.

What other conclusion can they reach when BYU/CES students are deliberately being misled about the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah?
_____

What all this means is, the evidence for M2C must be so powerful, so amazing, so convincing, and so irrefutable that it justifies brainwashing BYU/CES students into disbelieving the clear, unambiguous, and consistent teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah.

As we’ll see in the next few days, the M2C evidence not only doesn’t meet that standard, but it contradicts the text.

At the same time, the evidence that corroborates and supports the teachings of the prophets is impressive and persuasive.

_____
* I realize the term “deceived” has a connotation of a plan and an intention. That’s why I chose the term. I am not claiming anyone has lied about this, and none of this is a personal attack because I think the M2C proponents sincerely believe their ends justify their means. But I do think I was deceived by my teachers who didn’t tell me everything they knew. Specifically, they kept me ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. And they’re still doing it.

**You can read the complete Wentworth letter here:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng.
Remember, don’t look it up in the lesson manual Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith because the curriculum committee edited out the relevant passage to protect M2C. I explained this here:
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-official-position-of-church-part-1.html. Joseph’s identification of the remnant is consistent with the Lord’s identification of the Lamanites as American Indians living in New York and Ohio (D&C 28, 30 and 32).

You can read about the plains if the Nephites in Joseph’s letter to Emma, found in the Joseph Smith papers here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-emma-smith-4-june-1834/2
“The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of Mormon, 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.”

*** To be sure, Joseph identified the site of the New Jerusalem and arguably the site of Zarahemla and Manti, but those designations are less specific. While M2C advocates also press semantic arguments against the teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Wentworth letter, and Joseph’s letter to Emma, their logical fallacies on those points are laughable.

The last section of this series on Cumorah looks at evidence. (There are 8 sections because President Cowdery wrote 8 letters or essays, which I call the original Gospel Topics essays.)

In my view, members of the Church should accept the New York Cumorah purely because the prophets have taught this consistently and repeatedly. But that requires faith.

Instead, certain intellectuals in the Church* continue to teach members (including students at BYU/CES) that they should reject the teachings of the prophets on this topic.

According to these intellectuals, members should believe the intellectuals because they have “evidence.” I completely reject the M2C dogma that accepts what the prophets teach only when the prophets agree with the intellectuals.

I think M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) is a disaster because:
– it contradicts the plain, repeated and consistent teachings of the prophets;
– it causes “discord, division and confusion” (see below); and
– it teaches Church members to reject the prophets whenever they contradict the teachings of the intellectuals.

A more self-serving teaching cannot be imagined; I think M2C intellectuals should be embarrassed by their teachings.

But because the M2C intellectuals have trained thousands of faithful LDS at BYU/CES for decades, the preference for “evidence” over the words of the prophets is now deeply ingrained among LDS people generally.

Consequently, this week, we’ll look at the evidence.
_____

To start off, we need context. Moroni explained the concept of confirmation bias when he first appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823, he told Joseph

“Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people.” (President Cowdery, Letter IV, found in JSP here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68).

Joseph later summarized Moroni’s words by writing that he said “that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” (Joseph Smith-History 1:33).

Confirmation bias leads people to accept or reject Joseph Smith, just as Moroni explained. This is the threshold test for those who hear about the Restoration of the Gospel, and we see it play out on a daily basis around the world as missionaries preach the Gospel.
_____

I assume that most people who read this blog have passed the threshold test of confirmation bias; i.e., they rejoice in the Restoration and speak good of Joseph Smith’s name.

What’s the next test of confirmation bias for those who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet?

Confirmation bias leads people to accept or reject the teachings of the other duly ordained prophets and apostles. 

This includes their teachings about the Hill Cumorah in New York.

The M2C intellectuals try to persuade Church members that we don’t have to accept the prophets and apostles when they (the prophets) disagree with the conclusions of the intellectuals. That’s why they openly and proudly teach that Cumorah cannot be in New York.

Elder Russell M. Ballard spoke about this in General Conference in 1999 in an address titled “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers.”

He said, “As Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is our duty to be watchmen on the tower, warning Church members to beware of false prophets and false teachers who lie in wait to ensnare and destroy faith and testimony. Today we warn you that there are false prophets and false teachers arising; and if we are not careful, even those who are among the faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will fall victim to their deception…. As Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is our duty to be watchmen on the tower, warning Church members to beware of false prophets and false teachers who lie in wait to ensnare and destroy faith and testimony. Today we warn you that there are false prophets and false teachers arising; and if we are not careful, even those who are among the faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will fall victim to their deception.“

He quoted Joseph F. Smith’s talk titled “Delusive Spirits” from June 1st, 1883, available here. At the time, Joseph F. Smith was Second Counselor in the First Presidency under John Taylor. President Smith declared,

The moment an individual rises up assuming the right to control and to dictate or to sit in judgment on his brethren, especially upon those who preside, he should be promptly checked, or discord, division and confusion would be the result. Every man and woman in this Church should know better than to yield to such a spirit; the moment that such a feeling presents itself to them they should rebuke it, as it is in direct antagonism to the order of the Priesthood, and to the spirit and genius of this work. We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world.

BYU/CES fantasy map that teaches students the prophets and apostles are wrong

I think most members of the Church know better than to yield to such spirits. Knowing this, the M2C intellectuals act subtly. They sit in judgment of the prophets and apostles, declaring that they are wrong about the New York Cumorah, but they get past the defenses of Church members by cleverly teaching that the prophets and apostles were only expressing their “personal opinions” or spoke “to the best of their knowledge at the time.” Consequently, according to the M2C intellectuals, the prophets and apostles were not teaching as prophets and apostles, even when they were speaking officially in General Conference. 

Most members of the Church, once they learn what the prophets and apostles have consistently taught, accept those teachings. That’s why the M2C intellectuals do everything possible to suppress and conceal what the prophets and apostles have taught. That’s also why they have gone to such lengths to imprint their M2C dogma on the minds of the Saints, starting at a young age, with media, paintings, maps, etc.

But because we can all read about the New York Cumorah in the Joseph Smith Papers, the General Conference addresses, and books such as Talmage’s Articles of Faith and Richards’ Marvelous Work and a Wonder, the M2C intellectuals also try to persuade members that the prophets and apostles have been unclear and uncertain about the New York Cumorah.

As President Joseph F. Smith warned, the result of the M2C teachings are “discord, division and confusion.”

Joseph F. Smith went on to explain that “Through Joseph then, the Lord revealed Himself to the world and through him He chose the first Elders of the Church—men who were honest in their hearts; men whom He knew would receive the word and labor in connection with Joseph in this great and important undertaking; and all that have been ordained to the Priesthood, and all that have been appointed to any position whatever in this Church, have received their authority and commission through this channel, appointed of God, with Joseph at the head.”

One of these, of course, was President Oliver Cowdery.

What did President Joseph F. Smith think of President Cowdery?

In 1899, 16  years after delivering the sermon that Elder Ballard quoted, Joseph F. Smith was the Editor of the Improvement Era. He was still Second Counselor in the First Presidency, this time under President Lorenzo Snow. He had been an Apostle for 33 years by that point, and had served as a counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, along with George Q. Cannon.

In the July 1899 issue of the Improvement Era, President Smith published President Cowdery’s Letter VII.

Here’s the link to the cover page:
https://archive.org/stream/improvementera29unse#page/n0/mode/2up.

Here’s the link to the page where Letter VII starts.

https://archive.org/stream/improvementera29unse#page/652/mode/2up

Why would President Joseph F. Smith republish President Cowdery’s letters?

When he wrote them, President Cowdery was the appointed channel, to use President Smith’s phrase. As Assistant President of the Church, President Cowdery had been appointed as spokesman. Joseph Smith endorsed President Cowdery’s essays multiple times. Nine months after he published Letter VII, President Cowdery received Priesthood keys from Moses, Elias, Elijah and the Savior Himself in the Kirtland temple, along with Joseph Smith. (D&C 110)

Yet the M2C intellectuals consider themselves higher in authority than President Cowdery.

Since President Cowdery published Letter VII, every prophet and apostle who has addressed the question of Cumorah has affirmed it is in New York.

The only ones who claim otherwise are M2C intellectuals who seek to advance their own agenda that members of the Church should believe them instead of the prophets and apostles.
_____

The First Presidency, 1835

Normally, we members of the Church would accept what the prophets teach. President Cowdery wrote Letter VII with the assistance of Joseph Smith. The other members of the First Presidency at the time approved it, as did all the members of the Twelve who ever addressed the topic of Cumorah. All of the subsequent prophets and apostles who have ever spoken or written about Cumorah have affirmed Letter VII’s teaching about Cumorah in New York.

But the M2C intellectuals in the Church disagree. For decades, they have been teaching students at BYU/CES that the prophets and apostles are wrong.

They continue to do so. 

All because of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

Their influence has infiltrated Church media, curriculum, visitors centers, etc., as I’ve shown many times on this blog and elsewhere.

_____

The influence of the M2C intellectuals is pervasive. Because they exalt their “evidence” over the words of the prophets, we will look at their evidence as well as the evidence that supports the teachings of the prophets.

I repeat what I wrote at the outset: I completely reject the M2C dogma that accepts what the prophets teach only when the prophets agree with the intellectuals.

In my view, the evidence from archaeology, anthropology, geology, and geography supports and corroborates the teaching of the prophets, but that’s not the reason I believe the teachings of the prophets and apostles. My bias is belief in prophetic teachings. I think faith precedes the miracle.

_____

*There is no need to identify any individuals, but I’m referring to “mainstream” LDS scholars. You see their work in FairMormon, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, Book of Mormon Central, BMAF.org, the old FARMS, etc.