Author: Jonathan Neville

In October 2017, President Nelson gave another awesome talk about the power of the Book of Mormon, summarized here. “These and other truths are more powerfully and persuasively taught in the Book of Mormon than in any other book. The full power of the gospel of Jesus Christ is contained in the Book of Mormon. Period.”

The power of the Book of Mormon is undeniable among those who read and accept it.
_______

What prevents people from reading and accepting it?

Disbelief.

And what causes people to disbelieve?

We expect all kinds of opposition from outside. People don’t want to change their beliefs or their behavior, so naturally they’re going to resist the Book of Mormon, which urges them to do both. Opponents cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon, its historicity, and its relevance.

They always have and they always will.

The more serious problem is what is going on at BYU right now.
______

As an institution, BYU completely embraces the Book of Mormon, as it should.

However, intellectuals at BYU are undermining faith by teaching students that:

– Joseph didn’t even use the plates to translate the Book of Mormon, thereby defying his own words and the revelations.

– the Book of Mormon took place in a fantasy land based on the Mesoamerican interpretation of the text, thereby defying both the purported neutrality position and the literal reality of the account. See http://bom.byu.edu/

– if the Hill Cumorah exists at all, it is in Mexico, thereby defying what Joseph and Oliver taught, based on their actual experience with Mormon’s depository in the hill in New York (Mormon 6:6).
______

As long as BYU continues to undermine faith by teaching these ideas, how can we expect the power of the Book of Mormon to have its full impact among members of the Church, let alone among nonmembers?

1. The character of Joseph Smith

2. The historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

In 2017, critics of the Church continue to focus on these two issues, so we can learn a lot from the way that Joseph and Oliver addressed the issues in their day.

I’ll post some excerpts from the letters to illustrate how effective they were. You will see why Joseph made sure these letters were republished so often during his lifetime.
_____

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No; I will left them up, and in their own way too if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning; for truth will cut its own way.”

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/36
______________

There is enough content in this brief quotation to justify numerous discussions and blog posts, but I’ll summarize just a couple of things here.

I like the way Joseph referred to persuasion. Let’s try some reasoning.

Which of the following two approaches to Book of Mormon geography is better? 

1. A geography based on a New York Cumorah that supports and sustains what Joseph and Oliver taught, as affirmed by all of their contemporaries and successors (including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference).

OR

2. A geography based on Cumorah being anywhere except New York, that frames Joseph and Oliver, as well as all their contemporaries and successors (including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference), as ignorant speculators who misled the Church by expressing personal opinions that were false (and, in the case of Joseph and Oliver, specifically identifying their false opinions as fact).

If you think option 2 is better, then you can teach at BYU, write for BYU Studies, and contribute to Book of Mormon Central, FairMormon, etc.

If you think option 1 is better, your ideas are censored by the above institutions and publications.
_____

Now, let’s consider the last part of the quotation.

If we have confidence that “truth will cut its own way,” we are happy to have people consider all the facts. 

That’s why I cite the Mesoamerican sources so frequently. I want people to know what these intellectuals are saying.

In my experience, once they learn about Letter VII, few members of the Church knowingly reject what Joseph and Oliver taught there. 

The ones who continue to reject Joseph and Oliver despite Letter VII are those who are so deeply imprinted with the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that they literally “can’t unsee it,” to use the words of a BYU professor.

The only reason the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory has prevailed is because our LDS intellectuals have suppressed Letter VII and the teachings of the prophets and apostles who have affirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah being in New York.

Why do they do this?

Because they have persuaded themselves that their interpretation of the text is superior to unequivocal teachings of Joseph and Oliver about the Hill Cumorah.

Our LDS intellectuals don’t trust members of the Church to discern the truth on their own.
_____

We will know that our LDS intellectuals believe that “truth will cut its own way” when they give their readers–and their students–all the information about the New York Cumorah.

At a minimum, this will require the following:

1. BYU offers students a version of their digital map that refers to Letter VII and shows Cumorah in New York instead of requiring them to learn a fantasy map that frames the Book of Mormon as fiction.
http://bom.byu.edu/download-bom-maps-in-hd/

2. BYU Studies publishes an article about Letter VII and the prophets and apostles who have affirmed the New York Cumorah, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

3. Book of Mormon Central (https://bookofmormoncentral.org/) stops being Book of Mormon Central America and offers its readers all the research and information about the Book of Mormon, instead of pursuing its editorial position “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex” (http://bmaf.org/about/mission_statement).

4. FairMormon invites proponents of the New York Cumorah to provide material to allow a side-by-side comparison of the two approaches: i.e., Cumorah in New York vs. Cumorah anywhere else.

Based on recent experience, I doubt these events will ever occur, at least not so long as the people currently in charge remain in charge.
_____

Notice, I’m not even mentioning the Interpreter or Meridian Magazine, because the editors of those publications are even more intransigent than the ones I listed…

As of late, I have found myself arguing with many of my conservative and liberal LDS brothers and sisters on social media. Mainly, those take snippets from current General Conference talks, warp them to satisfy their confirmation bias that they have developed, use them to guilt trip and beat into submission those who may not agree with their philosophy, all while they ignore the established doctrines that do not sustain their warped views at all. What’s is the proper way of debating these types of people who are leading many astray? If these brothers and sisters are going to blatantly ignore Scripture and Prophets anyways, is it worth the time and effort to debate them at all? It is hard to just testify of the truth and leave it at that on social media because that’s usually where the confrontational arguments stem from in the first place. Someone testifies, but then someone has a counter-testimony that rejects the first. Both cannot be the truth.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/oaks-ballard?cid=HP_TH_19-10-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-C_&lang=eng#d

This is exactly what we expect will happen when people go to FairMormon for answers.

FairMormon has a distinct editorial point of view that they don’t disclose. They pretend to be neutral and to follow Church leaders, but in reality they are promoting their own agenda with well-planned and executed sophistry.

While FairMormon purports to provide “faithful answers to criticisms of the LDS church,” FairMormon emphatically teaches readers to disregard the words of the prophets and apostles that contradict the editorial opinions of the FairMormon staff.

This leads to exactly the type of disputation and contention that the Savior warned against in 3 Nephi 11. I blogged about this separately here: https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/

The latest issue of the New Era refers to fairmormon and BookofMormonCentral (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2017/10/to-the-point?lang=eng), and as I’ve always said, both sites contain good material.

But you need to use extreme caution in referring to both sites because they are pushing a specific agenda that involves rejecting the words of the prophets and apostles. 
_____

FairMormon’s work is causing members of the Church to become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon, just as Joseph Fielding Smith warned.

Here’s one example. On this page
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Hill_Cumorah/Quotes

they declare, “Church leaders have expressed a variety of opinions over the years regarding the location of the Hill Cumorah.”

Instead of the “variety of opinions” FairMormon wants their readers to believe, the modern prophets and apostles have been united and clear in affirming Oliver Cowdery’s teaching that it was a fact that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.

Look at how FairMormon deceives members of the Church by omitting the material that contradicts the FairMormon editorial position that promotes the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

Here’s their list of “Church leaders” supposedly expressing “a variety of opinions:”

• Marion G. Romney (1975): “As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men…gathered about that hill Cumorah”
• Harold B. Lee (8 Jul 1966): “if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think?”
• Paul R. Cheesman (Nov 1968): “There are those who believe that there are two Hill Cumorahs…Advocates of this theory establish their analysis primarily from the internal evidences of the Book of Mormon”
• Question: Did the First Presidency identify the New York “Hill Cumorah” as the site of the Nephite final battles?
• Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith reject the theory that the final battlefield of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica rather than New York?

They list exactly one General Conference address, the one by President Romney of the First Presidency. We have to give them credit for that, at least, but they list it as an example of “an opinion.”

FairMormon’s overall editorial position is that any statement by the prophets and apostles that contradicts FairMormon’s beliefs is merely an “opinion” that can be rejected.

Notice how this list of statements by “Church leaders” specifically omits Letter VII, written by the ordained Assistant President of the Church and repeatedly endorsed by Joseph Smith. FairMormon omits General Conference addresses confirming Letter VII given by President Ivins and Elder Peterson. They omit statements from Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and others.

All of these undisclosed statements by modern prophets and apostles are consistent and explicit about Cumorah being in New York.

Instead, FairMormon lists President Lee’s obscure comment out of context, because they know that in the actual talk, President Lee listed the two-Cumorahs theory among other false doctrines taught by seminary and institute teachers, as I’ve shown here:  http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/10/fairmormons-famous-harold-b-lee.html

Next they list Paul R. Cheesman as a “Church leader.”

Next, they cite the phony fax to repudiate an official letter from the office of the First Presidency, which I’ve discussed here: http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-to-create-some-doctrine.html

Finally, they attack President Joseph Fielding Smith’s warning about the two-Cumorahs theory as merely his opinion and therefore something to be ignored. “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”

This final item on the list is especially audacious because they don’t even show readers what President Smith actually said.* Instead, they give readers two paragraphs of sophistry designed to encourage readers not to heed the words of the prophets and apostles.
_____

There’s a lot more on FairMormon to discuss, but I’ll just mention this one.

On this page, they purport to show “Statements on Book of Mormon geography made during Joseph Smith’s lifetime: 1829-1840.”  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century/Joseph_Smith%27s_lifetime_1829-1840

This one is framed as a comprehensive list, but notice that it omits Letter VII!

Well, not completely. I’ll explain below, after I show you FairMormon’s list:

• Observer and Telegraph (Nov 1830): “the Aborigines of America; who, as they affirm, are a part of the tribe of Manasseh, and whose ancestors landed on the coast of Chile”
• W. W. Phelps: Ruins in Central America “good testimony in favor of the Book of Mormon”
• American Revivalist (2 Feb 1833): “The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians”
• Evening and the Morning Star (March 1833): “The continent of America is a choice land above all others”
• Evening and the Morning Star (Jun 1833): “NO people that have lived on this continent, since the flood, understood many of the arts and sciences, better that the Jaredites and Nephites”
• Evening and the Morning Star (Jun 1833): “Lehi was guided by the matchless power of God to this continent”
• Question: Does the story of Zelph have implications for Book of Mormon geography?
• Joseph Smith (4 Jun 1834): “wandering over the plains of the Nephites”
• Eli Gilbert (24 Sep 1834): “was not the book of Mormon also written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the continent of America?”
• W.W. Phelps (Feb 1835): “The first one is where you sat day after day and wrote the history of the second race that inhabited this continent”
• Oliver Cowdery (Jul 1835): “A history of the inhabitants who peopled this continent, previous to its being discovered to Europeans by Columbus”
• W.W. Phelps (Oct 1835): “the Indians, whose history and doings, upon this western continent, it unfolds as plainly”
• Joseph Smith (Nov 1835): “he said the indians were the literal descendants of Abraham”
• W.W. Phelps (Jan 1836): “The book of Mormon has made known who Israel is, upon this continent”
• William Smith (Jan 1837): “a remnant of the branches or seed of Joseph are represented as crossing the sea, and settling this continent of North and South America”
• Times and Seasons (Mar 1840): “The ancient events of America now stand revealed in the broad light of history, as far back, at least, as the first peopling of the continent after the flood”
• Joseph Smith (19 Jul 1840): “speaking of the Land of Zion, It consists of all North & South America”
• Parley P. Pratt (Aug 1840): “excavating in the neighbourhood of Bahia, in Brazil…bearing a strong architectural resemblance to the ruins existing in the northern parts of Norway, in Iceland, and in Greenland”
• Millennial Star (Sep 1840): “We learn these gentlemen will continue their journey, and after their visit to Palenque, will proceed to Mexico”
• Orson Pratt (1840): “they were marvellously brought across the great deep to the shores of North America”

If you look carefully, you’ll see the entry “Oliver Cowdery (Jul 1835). If you click on that link, you get not Letter VII entire, and not the passage in which he explains it is a fact that the final battles took place in the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York. Instead, you get this:

Oliver Cowdery (Jul 1835): “A history of the inhabitants who peopled this continent, previous to its being discovered to Europeans by Columbus”

This is sophistry that should be admired by everyone who studies techniques of persuasion. If you want to mislead people, you can learn a lot from FairMormon.

I’ve discussed this page in detail here:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-official-position-of-church-part-3.html

_____

*FairMormon has finally put President Smith’s warning on its web page, but it immediately framed the warning as meaningless because of 50-year-old hearsay by a student who attended a BYU class by Sidney B. Sperry who supposedly claimed that President Smith told him he was entitled to his own opinion. Check it out for yourself:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/Joseph_Fielding_Smith

So on one hand, we have an Apostle and Church Historian warning that the two-Cumorahs theory will cause members of the Church to become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith, and then, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, repeating that same warning.

On the other hand, we have FairMormon teaching its readers that, based on anecdotal 50-year-old hearsay, “It seems clear, then, that Elder (later President) Smith did not regard his views as the product of revelation, nor did he regard it as illegitimate to have a different view of the matter.”

The Book of Mormon itself teaches how to accomplish this purpose.

In 4 Nephi 1:17, we read “There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”

How did the people reach this degree of total unity?

We can see how by going back to 3 Nephi, starting with Chapter 11.
_____

When the Savior appeared after the great destruction, He addressed the problem of disputations and contention. He began by focusing on one simple issue: how to baptize. He started with the basics, teaching the doctrine clearly so no one could misunderstand.

He explained that the way to eliminate contention is to disregard the words of the prophets and apostles and substitute the philosophies of men, as articulated by the intellectuals in the Church about 34 A.D.

Now, you might not have noticed that in the actual scriptures we have, but that’s because, as our modern LDS intellectuals explain, we have only Joseph Smith’s translation, not the actual plates, so we have to infer what was on the actual plates.
_____

For a moment, let’s set aside the teachings of our LDS intellectuals and look at the actual text.

The Savior emphasized his doctrine by repeating it twice:

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

He had taught this same doctrine just before he appeared: “Therefore, whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child, him will I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God. Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved. (3 Nephi 9:22)

We all have a good idea of what it means to repent and be baptized, but what does it mean to “become as a little child?”
_____

Let’s go back and review what the Savior actually did, as recorded in the scriptures.

1. He descended from heaven.

2. He announced his name and his fulfillment of the prophecies.

3. He asked the people to come forth and see and feel the evidence so they could testify.

4. He called Nephi and gave him power to baptize (ordained him).

5. He instructed Nephi how to baptize to eliminate disputations about the manner of baptism.

6. He declared his doctrine (to repent, be baptized, and become as a little child).

7. He told the people to listen to the leaders He ordained.

“he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am.”
_____

I suggest that to “become as a little child” includes “giving heed to the words of these twelve.”

Nowhere does the Savior teach his followers to “give heed to the words of the intellectuals.”
_____

Among the Nephites, the manner of baptism was apparently a point of disputation that the Savior addressed promptly when He appeared. Despite his clear teachings, the Nephites later began arguing with one another about that doctrine. Mormon had to address it, as we learn from Moroni 8:5 “For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.”

In our day, a point of disputation is the location of the Hill Cumorah.

On one hand, we have the clear teachings of every modern prophet and apostle who has spoken officially on the matter. They have all said the Hill Cumorah–the Mormon 6:6 Cumorah–is in New York.

In fact, the first two people to whom the Savior gave “power that they may baptize you with water,” Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, explicitly taught that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.

On the other hand, we have the clear teachings of some LDS intellectuals, including people who teach at the BYU campuses and in the seminaries and institutes, who say Joseph, Oliver, and every other modern prophet and apostle are wrong.

The only reason we have disputations and contention on this issue is because some members of the Church refuse to “heed the words” of the ordained leaders of the Church. They prefer to “heed the words” of the intellectuals.

If we are ever going to reach unity in the Church, we have to start with the basics. 

I propose we all agree to heed the words of the modern prophets and apostles.

If we do, then we all agree that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.

Anyone who teaches otherwise is contradicting the ordained leaders of the Church.
_____

Some of the intellectuals who teach LDS students to disregard the teachings of the modern prophets and apostles justify their teaching by insisting that these modern prophets and apostles were merely expressing their opinions.

That rationale completely eviscerates the Savior’s teaching to “heed the words of these twelve.” Rejecting their words because we disagree with them is the opposite of heeding them.

Other intellectuals say that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith never claimed revelation about the location of Cumorah. That’s another way to eviscerate the Savior’s teaching to “heed the words of these twelve.” Very few of the words of the ordained leaders of the Church, even when delivered in General Conference, are preceded by “thus saith the Lord.” This argument is merely another way of saying we won’t heed their words because we disagree with them.

3 Nephi 12:1 doesn’t grant these exceptions to the Savior’s admonition to heed the words of the twelve.
_____

What are the consequences of not heeding the ordained leaders of the Church?

We will not be blessed the way the Savior promised.

We will continue to endure disputations and contentions about basic issues that should have been resolved long ago.

When Oliver Cowdery wrote Letter VII, declaring it was a fact that the Hill Cumorah was in New York, he was the ordained Assistant President of the Church. He, along with Martin Harris and David Whitmer, had selected the first Twelve Apostles. The Lord designated Oliver himself as an apostle. (D&C 21:10) Oliver and David Whitmer were “called even with that same calling with which he [the Apostle Paul] was called (D&C 18:9).

The Latter-day Saints will never reach unity when so many refuse to heed the words of the modern prophets and apostles.

To do so may require us to become as little children. Maybe we’ll have to repent. Maybe we’ll have to believe the doctrine of Christ and follow his counsel.

The sooner we do, the better.

_____

Oliver Cowdery’s ordination:

5 December 1834 • Friday
Friday Evening, December 5, 1834. According to the directions of the Holy Spirit breth[r]en Joseph Smith jr. Sidney [Rigdon], Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery, assembled to converse upon the welfare of the church, when brother Oliver Cowdery was ordained an assistant President of the High and Holy Priesthood under the hands of brother Joseph Smith jr. Saying, “My brother, in the name of Jesus Christ who died was crucified for the sins of the world, I lay my hands upon thee, and ordain thee an assistant President of the high and holy p[r]iesthood in the church of the Latter Day Saints

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1832-1834/94
_________

There are many more elements to becoming united to the point that there are no more -ites.

Among other things, we have to get to the point of equality, the way the Nephites did: “they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.”

The Book of Mormon teaches us how to do that, but we are far, far from even contemplating that state of society.

Our intellectuals have us questioning even the historicity of the Book of Mormon, teaching thousands of LDS youth every year that Cumorah is not in New York and that they should disregard any teaching of the prophets and apostles that they deem to be their “opinion.”

Maybe it would make a difference if we simply re-read these scriptures frequently.

Maybe that’s why President Monson asked us to do just that.
_____

3 Nephi 11:28

3 Nephi 12:1

1 ^aAnd it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to ^bbaptize, was ^ctwelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: ^dBlessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have ^echosenfrom among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am.

4 Nephi 1:

1 And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were ^abaptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

They have been very effective at persuading generations of Latter-day Saints to question and even doubt the veracity of the foundational witnesses of the restoration.

Here’s a radical new idea for them to consider. Actually, anyone who has been persuaded or even influenced by them should consider this idea.

What if Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were reliable and credible witnesses?
________________

Look at some excerpts from Oliver’s eight historical letters, for example. Pick out which ones are reliable and credible and which ones aren’t.

(Hint: I think they’re all reliable and credible, but some of our LDS intellectuals don’t.)
______________

Why?

First, because they think Joseph didn’t translate the Book of Mormon correctly. He was supposed to translate a “Mayan codex” but goofed, so they fix the translation with substitute terms such as this, along with volcanoes, massive stone Mayan temples, tapirs, etc.

Why this particular substitute term?

Because they think that if the “headwaters” of Sidon are south of Zarahemla, the Sidon river must flow north; i.e., it originates in the south and flows north past Zarahemla.

Of course, the text doesn’t say that, but promoters of the theory insist on it because their substitute term “headwaters,” they think, excludes North America as the setting for the Book of Mormon.

And by excluding North America, they can justify their rejection of what Joseph and Oliver taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York.
___________

This is the type of cascading false assumptions you need to support the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

It’s kind of fun to think that a major river such as the Sidon has a specific, identifiable headwaters area.

In the real world, rivers have many headwaters. Here’s a nice description quoted by Roger Terry on his blog, here: http://mormonomics.blogspot.com/2017/10/recycled-high-council-stuff.html:

Harline begins his book by observing that trying to find the origins of Sunday is like trying to find the source of a great river. “The delta at the end and the long channel flowing into the delta are easily recognizable. Yet the farther one moves upstream toward the source of the river, the trickier the going: tributaries multiply, lead astray, or go underground. And when finally located, the humble source may bear so little resemblance to the massive amounts of water downstream that one will surely wonder what the beginning can possibly have to do with the end.”¹

1. Craig Harline, Sunday: A History of the First Day from Babylonia to the Super Bowl (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 1.

I mention this in case there is anyone who still believes the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory because of the imaginary “headwaters” of Sidon that require the river flow north. 

Most people believe their ideas are based on facts and logic. Contradictory ideas are “wrong,” “uninformed,” “ignorant,” “irrational,” etc. It’s a problem for everyone, of course.

People also think that “experts” are better informed than they are, so they defer to experts they trust. And experts can make their arguments sound persuasive. But because we’re not experts, we don’t know what they’re not telling us. (I blogged about this before here:
https://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/01/science-and-history.html).

People in power are even more convinced that they are “right” and others are “wrong.” And as I mentioned in a post yesterday, people in power seek to suppress and even censor contradictory ideas, but if these ideas escape anyway and get out where ordinary people can learn about them, the people in power insist the ideas be opposed and ridiculed.

Eventually, though, these efforts backfire if the contradictory idea itself relies on more persuasive facts and logic. It becomes evident to observers that the censors are seeking to protect an idea that cannot withstand comparison and scrutiny.

Eventually the people in power start to capitulate.

That’s the phase we are entering now regarding FairMormon and Book of Mormon geography.
_____

FairMormon is an unusually extreme example of experts not telling us everything while insisting that those who do give us the important information (the things FairMormon censors) are “wrong.”

FairMormon has a blog you can read here: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog. They also have a “Journal” that is not public. They send it to subscribers, so it is not as easy to access, but it has some great stuff.

And some less-than-great stuff.

Here’s an unbelievably ironic passage in the latest iteration, FAIRMORMON JOURNAL, October 2017, with the original in blue and my comments in red:

Elder M. Russell Ballard used the story of one of our early pioneers, Jane Manning James, to talk about the gospel. He said about racism: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-trek-continues?lang=eng

He also said, “Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand.”

[So far, so good. Elder Ballard’s conference talk was awesome.]

There may be some who are wondering if FairMormon might fall into that category of organizations to avoid. 

[Remember, this newsletter is going to subscribers. From this statement we can infer that some subscribers are catching on to what FairMormon has been doing. That’s a key element for a change in paradigm. 

Not only are there “some” who wonder about FairMormon, but there are more and more people catching on. The reason is that FairMormon actively promotes the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, which requires them to repudiate what Joseph, Oliver, and every other modern prophet and apostle has said about Cumorah being in New York. 

Any organization that claims our prophets and apostles are wrong about what they say in General Conference deserves at least close scrutiny. 

I think people ought to insist that FairMormon change their editorial policy on this issue of Cumorah in New York. They have a lot of good material on other topics, so it is tragic that they continue to mislead the Saints about this topic. Actually, it’s even more damaging to faith for them to combine good, solid answers to gospel questions with their repudiation of the prophets and apostles on the question of Cumorah.]

I respond in three ways. First, we don’t claim any secret answers. We are here to support the brethren. I think the apostles understand and have everything they need. 

[If FairMormon doesn’t “claim any secret answers,” then why do they promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory? No prophet or apostle has endorsed the two-Cumorahs theory. Instead, they have specifically rejected it. The intellectuals at Fair Mormon claim that Joseph and Oliver were speculators, that they were ignorant, and that they were wrong. 

FairMormon claims they “are here to support the brethren,” but they constantly seek to undermine the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, President Ivins, President Romney, President Joseph Fielding Smith, etc.?]

Secondly, if we start to claim authority over the brethren and what they say, you shouldn’t listen to us! 

[This is exactly my point! This is one of the indicia of capitulation. If FairMormon sticks with this position, then either they need to change their editorial support of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or they are telling you not to listen to them.]

Third, if you have questions about FairMormon, go to LDS.org and type FairMormon into the search engine. You may be surprised. You can also check out this link. You will find us there. 
https://www.lds.org/si/objective/doctrinal-mastery/gospel-sources?lang=eng

[This is my favorite argument of the three. 

FairMormon is trying to persuade you here that the leaders of the Church endorse their positions (and I’m sure Church leaders would be very interested to see how FairMormon is using this link as an implied endorsement). But the link on lds.org itself explains that the Church is not endorsing their content. 

Plus in this very same “newsletter,” FairMormon itself writes, “All responses reflect the opinions of the respondents only and not the official position of FairMormon or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

This is an example of how you have to read FairMormon very carefully. They keep their articles anonymous, and they never reveal their “official positions” so they can always say that material on their web page is not “official.” But their editorial position is adamant that Cumorah is not in New York, to the point that they refuse to give their readers any material that contradicts their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.]

There are some led away by those who claim to have priesthood authority, or who claim special knowledge. 

[This is a serious concern that I share with FairMormon; there are groups popping up who are leading members of the Church astray. But it is FairMormon’s own claim to “special knowledge” about the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory that is most concerning to me, because it implicates the Book of Mormon itself as well as the reliability and credibility of Joseph, Oliver, all their contemporaries and their successors.]

Others claim they have the only truth, and people who don’t agree with their position, no matter how trivial the issue, are unbelievers or apostates. 

[Coming from Scott Gordon, the President of FairMormon, this one is especially ironic because he has labeled those who believe in the New York Cumorah among apostates. Some people think this is a reference to my recent posts about the “unbelievers at FairMormon,” but FaurMormon proudly claims they don’t believe Letter VII and all the prophets and apostles who have affirmed the New York Cumorah, so they can’t be referring to my posts here.]

We need to focus on the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. They have the keys given to them by Jesus Christ.

[See, this is an example of how FairMormon includes great stuff in their material. We all agree with these two statements–except FairMormon, which rejects what members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have taught in General Conference. I encourage everyone to focus on the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and not the sophistry on display at FairMormon–starting with the issue of the New York Cumorah.]

Here’s the link (although you may need a subscription to view it):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-holmess-free-speech-lesson-1507847318

The subheading to the article explains: “The more certain you are, the more you should resist the temptation to silence those who disagree.”

On this blog, I frequently quote, cite, and link to the publications of the intellectuals who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory. I encourage members of the Church to discover what these people are teaching. I think every BYU student, at whatever campus, and every CES student (and every parent) should know what is being taught.

But the intellectuals who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory take the opposite approach.

By now, readers of this blog know that these intellectuals (FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, etc.) are afraid to let members of the Church compare their theory to the North American setting (Moroni’s America or the Heartland).

These intellectuals know that most members of the Church, once they learn about Letter VII and the teachings of the modern prophets and apostles, accept the New York Cumorah. 

That’s why they continue to refuse to allow a comparison, or even a discussion, of the two theories.

The only way they can preserve their Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory is by 

(1) suppressing, arguing against, and ridiculing what Joseph and Oliver taught and 

(2) insisting that every modern prophet and apostle who has spoken about the Hill Cumorah in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, was wrong.

Now the intellectuals at BYU are promoting an “abstract map” of the Book of Mormon to convey an impression that they are “neutral,” even though their map teaches the Mesoamerican interpretation of the text and repudiates what the prophets and apostles have said about Cumorah in New York.

They don’t want people to know about the North American setting. They don’t want people to know about Letter VII. They don’t want people to know what has been taught in General Conference.

Now, let’s look at the WSJ article.
_________________

Excerpt:

“If you are absolutely certain that President Trump is or is not an idiot, that climate change is or is not the most pressing problem of our age, that abortion is or is not murder, that football players should or should not be allowed to kneel during the national anthem, that our nation needs more or fewer gun laws, welcome! Most of us feel the same way. Absolute certainty is common, as is the suspicion that anybody who is absolutely certain of the opposite view must be evil, ignorant or a gullible consumer of fake news.

“Along with absolute certainty comes the understandable impulse to regulate or ban the speech of your opponent. Why allow evil and ignorant people to infect others with falsehoods and dangerous ideas?”

The article discusses a pair of Supreme Court cases in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his mind about free speech.

“Holmes’s dissent in Abrams gave birth to modern First Amendment jurisprudence, with its veneration for the marketplace of ideas. He began by observing that it makes perfect sense to persecute people for their opinions: “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” The problem, Holmes realized, is that we are almost always absolutely certain of our premises, but sometimes we are wrong…

Holmes’s radical idea was that we are too often wrong. When we are wrong, the consequences can be dire. When we are not only absolutely certain but also right, what is the harm in allowing other views to be heard? The truth needs no protectors and will eventually win out, but nobody said it better than Holmes:

“When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”

Maybe you disagree with Justice Holmes. But thanks to the First Amendment, you are free to argue against him and let the best idea win.
_____

Because the intellectuals who promote the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory refuse to “let the best idea win,” each member of the Church–and each student at BYU–has the responsibility to investigate the facts for himself/herself.

B. H. Roberts included it in his book Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, but he combined portions of Letter VII and Letter VIII without indicating his edits and omitted all the references to the final battles and Mormon’s depository of records in the New York hill.

https://archive.org/stream/outlinesofeccles00brobe#page/314/mode/2up

It’s here in the 1902 edition:

https://archive.org/stream/outlinesofeccles00crobe#page/n297/mode/2up

No wonder Roberts had his famous problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Because our modern LDS scholars are also claiming Joseph and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah, they are leading members and investigators to also question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, exemplified by the fantasy map now being taught at BYU.