Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

Journey of Faith: The New World

Just when I thought I was finished with this blog, someone gave me a copy of the DVD Journey of Faith: The New World. I’d forgotten this DVD. This is a production of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University. It comes with a solicitation for donations featuring the BYU logo.

This DVD is a topic I haven’t addressed before. I owe it to the faithful readers of this blog to discuss the DVD, but I’m posting my comments on the web page.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

DVD-Journey of Faith: The New World

Someone recently gave me a copy of the DVD Journey of Faith: The New World. I’d forgotten this DVD. This is a production of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University. It comes with a solicitation for donations featuring the BYU logo.

It’s available on youtube here. It was uploaded in 2012 and has had over 168,000 views. It is still attracting comments. I can’t imagine a worse way to introduce the Book of Mormon to the world than this video.

Here’s the introduction from the video:

“This film represents decades of rigorous scholarly research into the archaeology and culture of the lands where the Book of Mormon story likely unfolded.”

Guess where?

Yep, Mesoamerica.

The liner, which is also translated into Spanish and Portuguese, is more explicit: “Drawing upon decades of research from many of our finest scholars, Journey of Faith: The New World explores the lands and culture of ancient Mesoamerica, the most likely location for where the Book of Mormon story played out.”

I know, it’s appalling, but remember, in 2007 when the video was produced, we didn’t know as much about Church history as we do now. Back then, people still believed Joseph Smith claimed Zarahemla was in Quirigua and LDS scholars were trying to vindicate his words.

Now we know better, though.

The DVD can be summed up in the ironic words of one of the narrators: “It is very difficult for the Mesoamerican people to let go of their old habits because they feel that the Gods will no longer be pleased with them.”

I consider the entire production to be a nostalgic exploration of a once-prevalent interpretation of the Book of Mormon, but since it is still on youtube and so far as I know all of the participants continue to promote the Mesoamerican setting, I’ll go ahead and relate my thoughts.

Again, as always, I emphasize that I like and respect the scholars involved. I’m focused solely on the facts and reasoning of the arguments made. I’m not going to explore the entire DVD, but just give you an idea of what it contains. By now, readers of my blog could figure all of this out for yourselves.

The DVD uses video from Mesoamerica to explain that Lehi landed in Mesoamerica, where there was an established population. Lehi’s group found a complex civilization–the Mayans–and “integrated” with these other groups.

According to the scholars, “all the evidence” suggests the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica.

As usual, Letter VII is ignored, presumably because it’s not evidence. Needless to say, no evidence from North America is even mentioned.

For that matter, the text of the Book of Mormon itself is ignored, except for convenient quotations, mostly taken out of context. The video depicts monkeys, jungles, huge stone pyramids–even volcanoes.

The usual suspects appear, telling us that the text describes Mesoamerica, with all kinds of speculation about how far people would travel. The narrow neck of land is 200 miles, for example. A day’s journey, and a day and a half. “We don’t run today like they did anciently.”

I guess not. At least, we don’t run 200 miles through equatorial jungles in a day.

Here’s an example of what the scholars are telling us to believe:

The land southward (mostly Guatemala) is supposedly nearly surrounded by water–except if you look at it, it is not. Notice that the land “southward” is actually “eastward,” extending in Yucatan more northward than the land labeled “northward.” The land “northward” is actually “westward.”

The Nephites migrated northward when Teotihuacan was founded. “It’s a city of cement.” Good luck finding a description of a city of cement in the Book of Mormon.

At one point, the video discusses temples. Scenes of Mayan pyramids are shown while the narrator explains that Nephi built a temple and says “the temple was the center of worship for Mesoamerican people.” Another narrator says “The pyramids in Mesoamerica are not temples; they are in fact symbolic mountains…. The temple structures on top of the pyramids constitute the temple itself.” The Mesoamerican setting would be clearer if only Mormon had not forgotten to mention the pyramids.

When Abinadi talks to the priests of Noah, he is not quoting the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20; instead, he’s relating Mayan concepts about the sky, earth, and water. You can believe that if you want. Or, you read what Abinadi himself said: “And now I read unto you the remainder of the commandments of God.” Then you can compare Mosiah 13:12 with Exodus 20:4 and decide whether Abinadi was citing the Ten Commandments or relating Mayan mythology about the three-tiered Mayan cosmos.

There is some wonderful circular reasoning. The Book of Mormon doesn’t tell us they met big established civilizations, but they must have because there were big established civilizations in Mesoamerica.

______________________

There are some fun straw man arguments, too. For example, Teancum kills the king on New Year’s day. One of the scholars instructs us that “If the ‘heat of the day’ did them in at New Year’s time, we’re not talking about upstate New York, and/or we’re not talking about our normal calendar. Probably both. We’re probably talking about a place very different from what Joseph Smith knew and a calendar that’s very different from our calendar because New Year’s day is hot. It’s so hot that it leaves people just drained of energy and exhausted in their camp.”

Well.

Compare that to what the scripture actually says. Alma 51:33: “sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.” These men were fighting a war. They fought all day long. Of course they would be exhausted. The “heat of the day” could mean two things. It could mean the heat of the battle they had fought all day long. Or it could mean the temperature of the weather.

Let’s think about that. I know a few people think the entire Book of Mormon took place in western New York, but that makes no sense to me and it conflicts with what Joseph Smith said anyway. In the very next chapter, Alma 52, Teancum and Moroni hold a council of war to figure out how to lure the Lamanites out of their strongholds. They send a proposal to the Lamanites to “come out with his armies to meet them upon the plains between the two cities.” (Alma 52:20). Where are the plains of the Nephites? Joseph Smith specifically identified them as the land we now call Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

What about the new year? The Nephites were keeping the law of Moses. The Jewish New Year is Rosh Hashanah, the first two days of the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar. This is usually sometime in September on our calendar. The temperature in that area today is in the 80s; last year, on Sept. 7th, it was 90 degrees in Columbus, Ohio, and 92 degrees in Indianapolis. Try fighting a war in that temperature, with high humidity, and you’d be overcome by the heat of the day, for sure.

The Jewish New Year element of Rosh Hashanah is a post-Babylonian exile development that Lehi may or may not have followed. (Scholars generally assume Lehi and his descendants knew nothing about post-Babylonian exile practices, but of course they could have made their own modifications to the traditions, they could have learned of post-exile practices by revelation, and other groups of Jews could have migrated to America besides Lehi and Mulek.)

Another possibility for the New Year would be the first new moon after the Vernal Equinox, which is sometime in March or April. In the last 100 years or so, the temperature in Columbus Ohio has reached 85 in early April. The Hebrew month of Nisan was used to calculate the number of years the king had reigned, so this makes sense.

There’s no reason to think the Lamanite New Year started on January 1 according to our calendar.

Once again, the scholars look through Mesoamerican lenses to see what they want to see. In this case, they use a straw man–upstate New York as the scene of the battle in Alma 51-52–to ridicule the idea that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery knew what they were talking about. Then they completely ignore what Joseph said about the plains of the Nephites. They pile a framework of meaning onto an ambiguous phrase (“heat of the day”) and propose the Nephites were using a calendar that began January 1.

This happens every time I look into what these scholars are saying. The evidence they cite for Mesoamerica actually demonstrates that North America is the actual setting, and that Joseph and Oliver were not making things up or speculating.

___________________

There plenty of “correspondences.” For example, there are “state visits” in the Book of Mormon, and “state visits” among the Mayan, therefore the Nephites were Mayans. (I’d like to know what human cultures did not have state visits between neighboring kingdoms.)

The Mayans had masks, so the Nephites were Mayans because Alma spoke about the image of Christ in your countenances. What human society does not have masks?

Mayan kings were considered to be divine, so King Benjamin emphasizes he is not divine; i.e., he was addressing Mayan culture. Or, you could remember that the Nephites often reminded the people of Egypt, where divine kingship was one of the fundamental tenets of ancient Egyptian religion. For that matter, I’m curious what culture does not consider their kings to be divine, or at least to have divine authority?

There would be many more correspondences, except Mormon forgot to include them (or Joseph translated the text incorrectly).

The more you look at this kind of explanation, the more you have to admire the capacity of human imagination.

The scholars explain how widespread ancient writing is throughout Mesoamerica. Again, Mormon forgot to discuss that in the text. Instead, he wrote about the people of Zarahemla, who had no writing for hundreds of years, and the Lamanites, who not only did not keep records but sought to destroy the records kept by the Nephites.

The best cure for those who still believe in the Mesoamerican setting is watching this DVD.

Uncategorized

State-level society part 2

People have asked for more discussion of the tribal vs. state-level society issue. I think there is a lot of potential to move toward consensus by analyzing this issue, so I’ll go ahead and look at it some more.

As I pointed out in my previous post, societies are not either “tribal” or “state-level.” They are a fluid mixture, and to the extent there is a transition, it often progresses from tribal to chiefdom to state-level. And, societies can regress, as we see in the Book of Mormon where 3 Nephi 7 describes the murder of “the chief judge of the land” and a disintegration of society into tribes based on family relationships.

The result: “And it came to pass in the thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land…”

Of course, the disintegration into tribes was followed by the destruction described in 3 Ne. 8. This leaves us with two questions:

1. What was the extent of the brief state-level society enjoyed by the Nephites?

2. How much evidence of this brief state-level society can we expect to survive to the present?

_________________

The article I mentioned postulated first that “The Book of Mormon unequivocally describes state level society, as well as the precise moment when complex Nephite government degenerated into tribalism 3 Nephi 7:2-4” and then “concluded with this: “State level society cannot be created out of whole cloth, not [sic] can it be explained away. A society either has it or it doesn’t. State level societies leave unmistakable traces that scientists recognize. No North American culture known to science achieved state level society during Book of Mormon times. Several Mesoamerican cultures achieved state level societies during Book of Mormon times. John L. Sorenson succinctly summed up the situation: “Only one area in ancient America had cities and books: Mesoamerica.” Mormon’s Codex p. 21.”

There are too many problems with these statements for me to address them all, but let’s discuss the extent of the brief state-level society enjoyed by the Nephites.

The article claims that “State-level societies support intensive populations… State level societies build large, well-organized cities and city states.”

The Book of Mormon gives us the actual population numbers for only one city: the city of Helam. Recall from Mosiah 18 that Alma took his followers and fled into the wilderness. In Mosiah 23:5, “they pitched their tents and began to till the ground and began to build buildings.” Alma refused to become their king, but he remained their high priest. In verses 19-20, “they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam. And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.”

According to the heading for Chapter 23, this took place from about 145-121 B.C.

Now, what was the population of this city?

450 people. (Mosiah 18:35).

About the size of a normal ward in the Church today.

Let’s generously say that in 20 years their population doubled to 900 people.

That’s the definition of a Nephite city. Everything else is speculation. All the commentary that the Nephties much have built “large, well-organized cities and city states” boils down to conjecture.

(Okay, sure, even the 900 number is speculation. All we really know is they started with 450 people and apparently built the city with that number. The scripture says they multiplied, not that they added population from outside the group. It’s impossible to know without having the demographics spelled out, but do the math using your own ward and see whether it would be possible to double the population over 20 years. (No fair using a Provo ward full of young married couples.)

🙂

Why does the text distinguish between villages, towns, and cities? (Alma 8:2 refers to villages and small villages.) Presumably, a village lacks a market and a town is smaller than a city. The text refers to only one market, and that was in the city of Zarahemla.

If the definition of a city is based on population, and the city of Helam (pop. 450) is a “city,” we can assume towns, villages, and small villages were even smaller.

The Book of Mormon refers to four “great” cities in the New World by name: Ammonihah (by implication, Alma 9:4); Zarahemla (Hel. 1:18); Moroni (3 Ne. 9:17); and another city called Jerusalem (Alma 21:2). This raises a question of whether the adjective great refers to size of territory or population, or just to a particular feature. Actually, passages that refer to “great cities” without naming them suggest the adjective “great” refers to defensive preparation; e.g., Helaman 8:6 “we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us.”

Nephi also referred to Jerusalem in the Old World as a “great city.” At the time when Lehi left, its population was about 25,000, but it was also fortified.

Even if great refers to population, we have a range of population for Book of Mormon cities of between 450 and 25,000 people.

So in the entire text of the Book of Mormon, we have some named great cities (presumably a maximum of 25,000 people, but probably much smaller) and lots of named and unnamed cities (minimum of 450 people) and even smaller towns and villages.

Nowhere does the text say these cities were built of stone.

You can reach your own conclusions about the extent of this “state-level society” and the amount of evidence that would survive to the present.

As for me, I don’t expect much evidence to survive the Alma wars, the Helaman political problems, the 3 Nephi descent into tribalism followed by the cataclysmic destruction, and the post-4 Nephi annihilation. About all I would expect to find are structures that the Lamanites could not–or would not–easily destroy.

Structures like monumental architecture such as massive geometric mounds of earth.

_________________

3 Nephi 7:14 is not a bad description of the tribes as of the time when the Europeans arrived in America, although there were some wars between some of the tribes. For an overview of what anthropologists say, you can read the wikipedia article here. I have a draft manuscript that goes through this in much more detail, but I probably won’t finish it this year because of other projects I’m doing.

Basically, in my view the Hopewell culture corresponds to the Nephites, the Adena correspond to the Jaredites (“in this north country”), and the other North American cultures are a mixture of other Jaredite groups, other immigrants from Asia, and remnants of Adamic cultures. The Mesoamerican and South American cultures could include Jaredite groups, but are mostly immigrants from Asia. To the extent there are indicia of Nephite culture there, it would have been brought south by post-400 A.D. migrations.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Frauds and Hoaxes

The other day I read a blog post about frauds and hoaxes related to the Book of Mormon. It made me think about what frauds and hoaxes have been most influential regarding the Book of Mormon. Maybe there is a potential to reach a consensus on this point.

The article mentioned the Kinderhook plates, the Newark holy stones (including the Decalogue Stone), the Las Lunas Decalogue Stone, and the Soper-Savage Michigan relics.

The article suggested a test for knowing these controversial “antiquities” are forgeries; i.e., they are out of context. “Genuine artifacts relate to their surroundings in discernible, reproducible ways.”

Hmm.

Isn’t that the argument made by those who claim the Book of Mormon itself is a fraud? Certainly Joseph’s account of the plates is not one that “relates to its surroundings in discernible, reproducible ways.” At least, I’m not aware of other ancient metal plates discovered in New York that relate a sacred history. Nor, if the Book of Mormon events took place in Central America, does the text relate to its surroundings.

Of course, the text is not out of context if the hill where it was deposited–the Hill Cumorah in New York–is the site of the final battles it describes.
_______________

The four items that the article alleges are frauds and hoaxes are of minor significance, at best. I don’t know of any theory of Book of Mormon geography that relies on them.

In my view, there are far more devastating hoaxes that need to be carefully scrutinized. These have diverted tremendous resources, including millions of dollars and untold man-hours of research, writing, publication, and reading.

The anonymous article in the Oct. 1, 1842, Times and Seasons that claimed Zarahemla was in Quirigua may be the biggest hoax of all. I’m not aware of anyone today who thinks Quirigua could possibly qualify as Zarahemla. The ruins cited in the editorial post-date Book of Mormon time frames, as Stephens, the author of the books, mentioned. Related to that are two anonymous articles dated Sept. 15, 1842, that also claim these ruins date to Book of Mormon times. It is difficult to think of a hoax that has caused more confusion than these anonymous articles. They led directly to the development of the two-Cumorah theory, a theory that an Apostle has specifically said causes members of the Church to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.

Another hoax was the Izapa Stella 5, which, while an authentic artifact, was linked to the Book of Mormon for decades. LDS people have purchased replicas, framed them on the walls of their homes, etc. Mormon critics have long said Izapa Stella 5 has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Finally, within the last couple of years, at least one LDS expert on the topic has reached the same conclusion. When viewed in the context of the other Stellae at Izapa, it is apparent that #5 has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.
_____________

Much more could be written about the problem of frauds and hoaxes, but maybe this line of analysis will help clear the air among those who study Book of Mormon geography and we can set aside problematic claims going forward.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

On Smurfs and hammers

I keep thinking I’ve made the final post on this blog, but then something arises.

Lately people have been asking me why the LDS scholarly community continues to promote the Mesoamerican theory. The short answer is that the Mesoamerican theory is a rational interpretation of the Book of Mormon if you 1) Don’t know about or reject Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII; 2) you think Joseph Smith didn’t know where the Book of Mormon took place and speculated about the setting; and 3) Joseph wrote or approved of anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons. Each individual can decide the merits of those propositions. In my view, the known facts–many of them relatively newly discovered–contradict those propositions.

When we learn new facts that contradict what we’ve thought for a long time, we can respond in a variety of ways. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can offer some analogies.
_____________

Years ago, I was working on a divorce case. The couple had minor children, and they worked out custody, no problem. They had assets and retirement and the rest, which they worked out, no problem.

But they had one remaining obstacle.

A Smurf collection.

They had some rare Smurfs they couldn’t replace and they were both so attached to them that they couldn’t agree on how to divide the collection.

It was an object lesson in priorities and emotional attachments.

People get emotionally attached to all kinds of things, and no amount of reasoning and no set of facts can overcome deep emotions.
_______________

When our kids were young, we bought a toy that had pegs on a board and a hammer. You could pound the pegs until they were flush with the board, then turn the toy over and pound them back from the other side.

Except the kids didn’t just pound the pegs.

They thought everything they saw needed pounding with that hammer.

The common phrase “to a hammer, everything is a nail” is an example of the law of the instrument. It’s also called Maslow’s hammer or a Golden Hammer. The idea is that people tend to rely on a familiar tool.

Psychologists refer to this as deformation professionnelle. It’s a cognitive bias that “stops us from seeing the world the way that most people see it.” Instead, we see the world from the perspective of our own profession. On this blog I’ve posted comments about seeing things through lenses, which is another way of expressing deformation professionnelle.

There’s nothing wrong with deformation professionnelle so long as we are cognizant of it and adjust our thinking accordingly. This means having an open mind, which is very, very difficult, especially when it implicates one’s profession and life’s work.

I’ve made it plain throughout this blog that I have found a high degree of deformation professionnelle in the field of Book of Mormon geography. Perhaps more than I’ve encountered in any other field, actually. Two rhetorical techniques pervasive in the literature are good examples.

First, advocates of a particular theory create lists of “requirements” that just happen to be perfectly met by their preferred geography. To me, these are transparently circular arguments, but I see them all the time so some people must think they are meaningful.

Second, closely related to the first, a lot of manipulated expectations are set up, which again happen to be perfectly satisfied by whatever analysis is being employed. I addressed a recent example that involved an analysis of tribal vs. state-level society.

Lists and expectations can be helpful for analysis, but the analysis should start with the lists and expectations themselves. Lists and expectations based on deformation professionnelle are taken for granted by like-minded people and become nothing more than rhetorical tools.

I recommend that when you read an article or hear a lecture, you consider whether, and how, the content is driven by deformation professionnelle.
___________

I freely admit my own professions have affected my approach to these issues. I’ve mentioned in this blog that I also see things through the lenses of my professions. So here is a summary of my own deformation professionnelle. (This is just a quick summary, but feel free to add more examples in the comments.)

As a lawyer, I tend to think issues that can’t be resolved by negotiation can be resolved by appeal to a tribunal, based on presentation and comparison of facts and analysis. (In the case of Book of Mormon geography, negotiations about geography have obviously failed, so.the tribunal for now is each individual who reads, or even thinks about, the Book of Mormon).  Consequently, I enjoy the give and take of debate and argument and don’t take things personally. People remind me frequently of this deformation professionnelle–i.e., others do take things personally–so I’ve tried to tone down the rhetoric and sharpness. (There are two ironies here. First, I really like the people I’ve met who write and think about this topic, regardless of what they write and think. They’re all great people and I don’t intend to offend anyone. Challenge, certainly, because of the content, but not offend. Second, I thought I had been toning it down from the outset, which shows how severe my deformation professionnelle is.)

😉

This deformation professionnelle also leads me to object when the tribunal (each individual) hears only one side of a case. That’s why I keep harping on the monolithic approaches to Book of Mormon geography taken by the publications and institutions I can’t name without offending someone.

Another aspect of my defomration professionnelle–the lens through which I admittedly view the world–involves credentials. I’ve been in situations where competent experts (we call them expert witnesses) completely disagree. In the legal profession, you can hire just about any credentialed opinion you need to support your client’s case. I’ve also funded research at universities, where I learned you can get pretty much any result you want (within reason) depending on how you word the grant and select the recipient. Consequently, for better or worse, I tend to disregard credentials and focus instead on facts and analysis. As I’ve written before, PhD doesn’t stand for “open mind.” It doesn’t stand for “objective,” “rational,” or even “fair.” I don’t accept the rationale of deferring to someone because of their expertise. If their expertise can help them present facts and analysis, great. But it’s not the expertise that matters; it’s the facts and analysis that matter.

For better or worse, I also tend to separate emotional elements in my analysis because I recognize how emotion colors arguments and perceptions. I started discussing that in my blog post about white hat thinking.

As an educator, my deformation professionnelle leads me to think no two people learn the same way, so I try to offer as many different approaches as I can think of to convey information and encourage students to learn for themselves. I have also found that students are more interested in controversy and tension than in rote facts. They don’t like being told what to think. But of course some approaches don’t work for some students, and a lot of students don’t want to learn (or think) for themselves. (I can also see from the statistics that my “controversial” blog posts generate far more views than the “tame” ones. I don’t write click bait on this blog, but there may be a time and a place for that.)

As a business guy, I think common sense is more effective than rhetorical flourishes and semantic gymnastics. My deformation professionnelle biases me toward thinking that institutions and organizations tend to acquire and defend Groupthink. Preservation of and loyalty to the organization become high priorities, and an element of tribalism seems to materialize as soon as one joins “the team.” Consequently, disruptive technology (and ideas) are important for progress and improvement–and especially for the pursuit of truth. Organizations that respond effectively to disruptive technology succeed; those that don’t, fail.

And as an author, my deformation professionnelle exaggerates the impact of the written word. In reality, no one has the time or inclination to read yet another new book. But I also recognize there are decades of publications that express what I consider to be an erroneous ideology, so I indulge my deformation professionnelle and keep writing on this topic anyway.

🙂

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Letter VII and Moroni’s America

x blogThe two most important terms to remember from this web page are Letter VII and Moroni’s America. Everything we do ultimately comes back to those two concepts.

Letter VII is one of eight letters Oliver Cowdery wrote about Church history, with the assistance of Joseph Smith. In Letter VII, he makes it unequivocally clear that the Hill Cumorah in New York was the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Joseph had the letters copied into his history as part of his life story. Letter VII was published in 1835 in the Church newspaper titled the Messenger and Advocate. It was republished in 1841 in both the Gospel Reflector and the Times and Seasons.

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, there was no question about the New York setting of the Hill Cumorah. Today, though, many LDS scholars reject what Oliver Cowdery wrote because they think the “real” Cumorah is somewhere in Mexico.

We think every member of the Church should read Letter VII during 2016. If you haven’t done so already, do it right away.

When you read Letter VII, realize that Oliver Cowdery was the Assistant President of the Church when he wrote it. Joseph helped him and fully endorsed the letter.

Critics say that Oliver and Joseph never claimed revelation about the setting of the Book of Mormon. That’s not a true statement; the most we can say is that we have no written record that they claimed this type of revelation (although even that’s debatable given the things Joseph said Moroni told him). But it doesn’t matter whether they received revelation on this or not because they did say they had visited the room–in the Hill Cumorah in New York–where Mormon deposited the Nephite records. Anyone can read the text and see that Mormon put the Nephite records in the same place where he observed the final destruction of the Nephites. Because Joseph and Oliver (and others) visited that depository, they knew the Hill Cumorah in New York was the scene of the final battles.

____________

Moroni’s America is not just the name of this web page and related books. It’s a term that encapsulates several important principles.

First, Moroni holds “the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim” (D&C 27:5).

Second, Moroni wrote specifically to us, emphasizing that America is a “choice land above all other lands” and that it is a covenant land such that “the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2). It’s critical for people to understand what land Moroni was referring to. Even though he and Joseph made it clear, many scholars have diverted the focus to Central America and other sites.

Third, General Moroni was a heroic advocate for liberty. Realizing he was defending liberty right here in America brings the text to life and adds even more meaning and relevance.

Uncategorized

Agreeing to disagree

Questions about Book of Mormon geography are a means to an end. There is broad agreement on the ultimate objective of focusing on the Book of Mormon itself, in the sense of reading and applying its principles and teachings. For many of us, the geography and historicity issues improve our understanding of the text. These issues help many people dig into the text for themselves to find answers.

Although it would be great if everyone involved with Book of Mormon historicity and geography issues could reach agreement about the major issues, that seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. Instead, I think we can agree to disagree about a few basic issues.

One explanation of the phrase: The phrases “agree to disagree” or “agreeing to disagree” refer to “the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s).”

Agreements to disagree can result from different perspectives, as the cartoons illustrate. Walking around to the other side–a metaphor for seeing another person’s perspective–can clarify the source of a disagreement. We may prefer the perspective we start with, but at least we understand why the other person sees things the way he/she does.

People tend to think evidence will resolve disagreements. Sometimes it does, but many times it does not. Economists disagree about the meaning of the same statistics they are all using. Although each juror has heard the exact same presentations about the evidence, juries often can’t reach an agreement. Sports fans disagree about calls made during a game, even when they all watch the same replay.

Another component of disagreement is summarized in a question posed by Ray Dalio in his famous Principles statement: “How much do you let what you wish to be true stand in the way of seeing what is really true?” I posted an example of this regarding tribal vs state-level society, in which the article manipulated the Book of Mormon text and the archaeological evidence to support a long-held and pre-determined conclusion that the text and the archaeology support the Mesoamerican theory. The text and the archaeology actually support the opposite conclusion.

One philosopher who has examined the question of why people can’t agree concludes, “A multi-model understanding tells us that such differences may make conversion unlikely. Once we give up on conversion, we may look for those mutually beneficial accommodations that are possible even when models differ.”

That’s the kind of approach I hope everyone can take.

_____________________

Here are a few issues that I’ve already agreed to disagree with others about.

Hill Cumorah. Because I accept Letter VII, I think there is only one Hill Cumorah and it is in New York. Others don’t accept Letter VII and claim there are two Cumorahs, the one in New York being merely the place where Moroni deposited his plates, the other (where Mormon deposited the Nephite records) being somewhere else (Baja, Meso, Peru, etc.).

Book of Mormon terminology. Everyone likes to claim they are relying on the text, but of course they mean they are relying on their interpretation of the text. For example, I think terms such as narrow neck, narrow neck of land, small neck of land, narrow pass, narrow passage, and narrow strip of wilderness refer to different features. Others think they refer to the same thing, which leads to the common hourglass shape of many abstract and proposed Book of Mormon maps.

Anonymous Times and Seasons articles. I think the anonymous Times and Seasons articles that linked Zarahemla to Quirigua were not written or approved by Joseph Smith. Others disagree. I think these articles were the genesis of the Mesoamerican theory of geography. Others disagree with that, too.

There are many more, of course, but we can probably narrow it down to a dozen or so.
______________________

One thing that makes agreement to disagree so difficult in a gospel context is we all presumably have an objective of finding the truth. We’re used to thinking “The truth shall make you free,” and “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”

I’ve had people tell me they are very uncomfortable with the idea of multiple views about Book of Mormon geography. That approach seems analogous to the approach to fiction generally; i.e., as long as we’re imagining a setting, no one’s imagination can be excluded from consideration.

I agree with those concerns, which is one reason why I think the New York Cumorah is so important.

But I think we need to let each individual make his/her own choice on each of these areas in which we agree to disagree. This is healthy, not only because it respects agency, but because it encourages individuals to dive into the text and decide for themselves.

A decision-tree exercise would help people navigate the issues. People who haven’t considered these issues before, or who are bewildered by them, or who sense a state of cognitive dissonance, could find the process rewarding.
________________________

To make an informed choice, people must have access to information. This is why I consider the decades-long embargo on North American geography ideas to be counterproductive. I realize people are touchy about this subject, but ignoring the fact that major LDS publications (scholarly and popular books, articles, and web pages) have promoted the Mesoamerican theory to the exclusion of alternatives doesn’t help. It’s time to get real about this.

It is understandable, but not excusable, that the so-called consensus about the Mesoamerican theory has become the de facto standard. So far as I know, there is not a single editor of an LDS publication–not even a member of an editorial board–who accepts the North American setting. Mesoamerican ideas permeate CES faculty, including BYU. This has nothing to do with the merits, either. It’s a result of a collective Groupthink approach to the topic, and it contradicts the Church’s official policy of neutrality.

Most LDS people alive today have been raised with the Mesoamerican mindset. It permeates Church curriculum through the artwork. Editions of the Book of Mormon are still being published with Arnold Friberg’s Mesoamerican paintings in them. People who accept the Mesoamerican model don’t seem to realize how offensive the two-Cumorah theory is to thousands of members of the Church. The shorthand way to put it is that these faithful members agree with Joseph Fielding Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

More examples: every one of the affiliates of Book of Mormon Central promotes the Mesoamerican setting and opposes alternatives. I’ve specifically addressed BMAF and FairMormon as examples.

Consequently, members and investigators who are interested in these issues are presented with only one point of view: the Mesoamerican setting. When that doesn’t work for them, they either leave (or stop seeing the missionaries) or they enter the state of cognitive dissonance that gnaws at them. Some people can live with cognitive dissonance, but others resolve it by eventually leaving, or finding an alternative that makes sense to them–such as the North American setting.

I realize some people think that offering alternative geography theories will create its own cognitive dissonance for people. Many people just want answers, without having to think much about it. Maybe most people. They think, “Why should I study this if the scholars can’t even agree?”

That’s why it would be ideal if all LDS scholars could agree on a setting that integrates all the known facts from Church history, the text itself, and the sciences. But until that point, openly acknowledging the agreements to disagree is far preferable to pretending there is only one legitimate setting because the scholars have reached a consensus about it.

There is a risk of replicating the Pharisees vs. Sadducees scenario. Awareness of that risk mitigates the likelihood of it becoming a reality.
____________________

What I propose is a set of points upon which we can agree to disagree. Each side explains its perspective on the points. Book of Mormon Central would be the host for the comparisons. To remain an affiliate, every organization would have to adopt a respectful approach towards non-Mesoamerican models. Individuals could continue to advocate one or another approach, but the editorial process would include representatives from other points of view to assure accuracy of published material when it purports to characterize the positions of alternative points of view.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

New web page

Now that this blog has fulfilled its purpose, I’m happy to announce a more comprehensive web page.

https://www.moronisamerica.com/

This is far more flexible format than a blog, although it will include a blog as well. We will have a newsletter you can subscribe to for updates. We are adapting the hundreds of posts on this blog so they will be accessible by category.

Thanks to Rian Nelson, there are some wonderful maps, some excellent artwork, some additional research, and much more. There is even a section for kids that includes activities and cartoons.

We think this is a more user-friendly resource that you can share with others. Let me know what you think. As always, we welcome feedback and want to incorporate suggestions as quickly as possible.

Thanks again for all your interest in the things we discuss on this blog.

And remember, we want everyone in the Church to read Letter VII during 2016.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Summary post

I started this blog to explore questions of Book of Mormon historicity and geography. I’m an active member of the Church and I accept the Book of Mormon as an actual history of real people. There are a lot of active, inactive, and former members who don’t believe that. I wanted to know why. I’ve spent much of the last two years focusing on the issue, and now I’m going to state my overall conclusion and thesis.

After that, I will briefly summarize the history of the blog and the responses I have received.

____________________

Preliminary matters.

Many members of the Church are deeply attached to a particular setting for the Book of Mormon. If your ideas work for you—in the sense that your beliefs make the text more real for you and help you understand and apply its meaning—then that’s great. In this blog I’m simply relating the facts as I understand them, along with reasonable inferences. This understanding works for me. Your mileage may vary. Do what you think best.

Many active Church members tell me it doesn’t matter where the Book of Mormon took place because it is the message (about Christ and the Gospel) that is the most important. To me, that’s a non sequitur. Granted, the message about Christ and the Gospel is the most important, but that’s not the reason we have the Book of Mormon. That message could have been communicated through modern revelation. It could also have been communicated through parables—which is exactly what many active members of the Church think the Book of Mormon is, instead of an actual history.

I’m not saying active members need to be interested in Book of Mormon historicity and geography, but I am saying they need to recognize they are self-selected by their faith in the Book of Mormon. When we recognize that most members of the Church are not active, maybe we’ll recognize one reason is because they don’t accept the Book of Mormon as a literal history. 

I think the reason we have the Book of Mormon is (as the Title Page explains) to convince people that Jesus is the Christ, manifesting himself unto all nations.  If, as I assert, the Book of Mormon is an actual history of real people, then the only explanation for it is what Joseph and Oliver said. And if it’s an actual history, then it took place somewhere—again, as Joseph and Oliver said.

Ultimately, the geography depends on where Cumorah is. I suspect most members of the Church—including me—think Cumorah is in New York. Many Church members are surprised to discover that is not what most LDS Book of Mormon scholars claim.

I think the scholars are wrong, and this blog explains why.
__________________________
Summary and thesis

This is a summary of the facts in Church history as I understand and interpret them. You may or may not have heard/read these things before, but probably you have not. Some people will disagree with me about some of the details, but my point here is not to convince anyone. I’m just explaining my thesis. I’m not including any references or detail; I’ve provided hundreds of footnotes in this blog and in my books for those interested.

My thesis:
In 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery translated the plates Moroni deposited in the square box he constructed of stone and cement in the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York.

Joseph and Oliver worked in Joseph’s small home in Harmony, Pennsylvania. While they worked on the translation, Joseph received a revelation (D&C 10) that he should not retranslate the first part of the plates—the Book of Lehi. (In 1828, he had translated that the Book of Lehi with Martin Harris acting as scribe, but Harris lost the manuscript.)

Consequently, when Joseph and Oliver reached the end of the Book of Moroni, they were finished with those plates. D&C 10 told Joseph he’d have to translate the Plates of Nephi to replace the lost manuscript—but he didn’t have the plates of Nephi.
Due to increasing persecution, Joseph and Oliver arranged to continue the work at the Whitmer farm in Fayette. Joseph gave the plates to a heavenly messenger in the form of a man. David Whitmer drove his wagon to Harmony to pick them up. On their way to Fayette, they passed the messenger on the road. David asked if he wanted a ride, but the man declined, saying he was heading for Cumorah. David had grown up in the area but had never heard of Cumorah. He turned to Joseph to inquire. When he turned back, the messenger had already left.

The messenger went to Cumorah where, separate from Moroni’s stone box, there was a large underground room—a repository—containing all the records of the Nephites. Mormon had moved the plates here from the original storage place in the Hill Shim. The messenger left Mormon’s plates in the repository and retrieved the plates of Nephi. He took these to Fayette. He showed them to David’s mother before giving them to Joseph Smith.
Joseph and Oliver translated the plates of Nephi (1 Nephi through Words of Mormon) in Fayette. When they finished, Oliver, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris sought permission to see the plates.
The messenger brought additional records from the repository, including the plates of brass, the plates of Ether, and other plates and artifacts. He set them up in the woods. Moroni then appeared to Joseph, Oliver and David, showing them all the records. He appeared to Martin Harris and Joseph separately, possibly showing Martin just some of the things Oliver and David saw.
The messenger then returned all the plates and artifacts to the repository in Cumorah.
Later, Joseph arranged to have eight other men view the plates. These men were all in the area of Palmyra when they saw them. Joseph and Oliver went to the repository, retrieved a set of plates (probably Mormon’s, not Nephi’s). Joseph and Oliver returned the plates to the repository. This likely happened on more than one occasion; i.e., two groups of four men each saw the plates, but they all signed a joint statement of testimony.

From the time Joseph first announced he had found the plates in the Hill Cumorah, people had been digging in the hill seeking buried treasure. The Lord knew that once the statements of the witnesses were published, the treasure seekers would renew their efforts. Before Oliver Cowdery left on his mission to the Lamanites, he and Joseph, probably assisted by David Whitmer and Joseph’s brothers Hyrum and Don Carlos, moved the plates out of Cumorah to another location. Probably this was to the Hill Shim where Ammaron had originally hidden them. It took several trips by wagon, but it left the repository in Cumorah empty.

All of the men involved operated under a vow of secrecy. Oliver and some of the others did tell Brigham Young and a few other people what happened. Possibly they told Brigham where they moved the plates, but if so, this has never been discussed publicly.
During Zion’s Camp, Joseph recognized the terrain as the plains of the Nephites. He wrote about it to Emma, who had been one of the original scribes. She knew what Joseph was referring to because they had discussed what Joseph learned from Moroni during his interviews, when Moroni told him all about Nephite society and showed him the people in vision.

Also on Zion’s Camp, Joseph had a vision of Zelph, a warrior in the final battles who was killed and buried in Illinois.
Joseph knew the Native American Indians who lived in the Great Lakes region were the descendants of Lehi’s people. He met with tribes from this area and told them their fathers had written the Book of Mormon. 
At various times, Joseph tried to write a history of the Church, but events were unfolding so rapidly—and he was not comfortable writing because of his limited education—that the efforts never amounted to much. In 1834, Oliver began writing a series of letters to W.W. Phelps, outlining the early history. Joseph assisted in the effort. Oliver wrote eight letters that were published in the Church’s newspaper, the Messenger and Advocate, in Kirtland. In Letter VII, he described the Hill Cumorah and explained that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of Cumorah.

Oliver didn’t claim revelation on the point; he knew it was true because Mormon had deposited the records in the hill and Oliver and Joseph had both seen them there. That’s why Joseph had his scribes copy Letter VII into his journal as part of his history (this was after Letter VII was published in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835).

Years later, Joseph gave express permission to Benjamin Winchester to republish the letters, including Letter VII, in the Gospel Reflector. Joseph’s brother Don Carlos also republished them in the Times and Seasons. The following year, 1842, Joseph referred to Cumorah in D&C 128. Cumorah in New York was universally understood in Joseph’s day because Joseph and Oliver taught it, and they taught it because they had been inside Mormon’s repository and had moved the Nephite records.

Apart from Cumorah, which Joseph mentioned in D&C 128, and Zarahemla, mentioned in D&C 125, the Prophet never officially identified specific Book of Mormon sites. He was faced with more pressing matters, including the troubles in Missouri, the need to build the temple and introduce all the temple ordinances before he died, the thousands of immigrants coming to settle in Nauvoo, and much more. It is possible he was unable to relate what he knew to the geography passages in the Book of Mormon because the references in the text are archaic and use Hebrew parallel forms.
From the outset of their missionary work, Parley P. Pratt, Benjamin Winchester, and other early missionary/authors were constantly being attacked by anti-Mormons. One persistent line of attack was the claim that Joseph had copied the Book of Mormon from a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding. Pratt and Winchester both responded to this claim. Another criticism focused on the text itself. The Book of Mormon describes advanced civilizations, but everyone knew the Indians were savages. Critics claimed the Book of Mormon merely repeated the legends of ancient civilizations in North America that were destroyed by the savage Indians. Pratt, Winchester, and others responded to these criticisms by pointing to discoveries of long-lost civilizations in Central America that built great stone pyramids and cities.

In 1842 Joseph Smith became the nominal editor of the Times and Seasons. From the early days of the Church, he knew it was important for the Church to have its own newspaper because he could not get fair coverage from the media. W.W. Phelps, an experienced newspaperman, was called to publish a newspaper in Missouri—The Evening and the Morning Star. Oliver Cowdery was called to assist in editing. Phelps had a strident tone, though, and he wrote an article that inflamed the Missourians and led to the destruction of the printing press. Joseph sent Oliver to buy another press. Oliver set it up in Kirtland and continued the Evening and the Morning Star. He replaced it with the Messenger and Advocate. Eventually, Phelps and Oliver were excommunicated. Joseph started the Elders’ Journal, which listed himself as Editor, although his brother Don Carlos (who had learned the newspaper business from Oliver), was the acting editor.
When the Saints moved to Nauvoo, Don Carlos started the Times and Seasons. He died in September 1841, after which Ebenezer Robinson took over as publisher and editor. Winchester moved to Nauvoo and began working at the paper in November, despite being severely disciplined by Joseph Smith on October 31. Every issue of the Times and Seasons from November 1 through February 15 contained at least one long article written by Winchester but published anonymously, giving credit only to the Gospel Reflector.

Joseph had misgivings about the operation of the paper. Based on his experience with Phelps and Oliver, he seemed willing to trust only his brother Don Carlos, but when Don died, he was left with few options. The Lord answered his prayers with a revelation that the Quorum of the Twelve should take over the paper. They “suspended” Winchester, who moved back to Philadelphia and started work on his Synopsis and Concordance.

The Twelve purchased the paper from Robinson and, beginning on February 15, 1842, named Joseph as printer, editor, and publisher. Wilford Woodruff managed the business affairs of the printing office and John Taylor assisted in writing. The printing office, which published a variety of material in addition to the Times and Seasons, had a staff of printers, proofreaders, and writers. In April, Joseph’s other brother, William, started a local paper called the Wasp. It was published from the same shop as the Times and Seasonsand shared editorial content.

Joseph’s involvement at the Times and Seasons started with the publication of the Book of Abraham, the Wentworth letter, and the History of Joseph Smith, a compilation of material Joseph supplied to his clerks but did not write himself. By the spring of 1842, W.W. Phelps had moved to Nauvoo and was helping to write and edit material for the Times and Seasons. 
Joseph was busy with many responsibilities, well documented in his journal. Editing the Times and Seasons was never mentioned in his journal. (Nor was printing the paper.) Although Joseph was the nominal editor, William soon became the acting editor of both newspapers, with the uncredited assistance of Phelps (although it is very difficult to determine which of them contributed what editorial content). Winchester, who had been sending material to the Times and Seasons since its very first issue in 1839, continued sending articles to the paper.

Because of his tenuous relationship with the Twelve, Winchester’s work was published anonymously and over the signature of the Editor. One example is the article “Try the Spirits,” published on 1 April 1842, which contains several passages that are nearly identical to portions of Winchester’s Synopsis and Concordance.

Later in the year, William published some of Winchester’s material over a pseudonym. Winchester continued adapting the material he was writing for his Synopsis and Concordance. As in the Gospel Reflector, Winchester’s main themes were baptism, opposing anti-Mormons, and proving the Book of Mormon with extrinsic evidence. Winchester wrote editorial comments about the works of Josiah Priest and Stevens and Catherwood. Three of these articles appeared in the September and October 1842 Times and Seasons, making an explicit link between the Book of Mormon and Central America. The one published on October 1 even claimed Zarahemla was in Quirigua, Guatemala.

Joseph Smith usually saw the paper when everyone else did—after it was published. He was dismayed by the Oct. 1 issue. He realized that having his name listed as the nominal editor conferred an element of authority on the paper that was unwarranted and risky. He had already been told by others that William’s editorial approach reflected badly on the Church so he decided to remove William as editor of both papers. He, Joseph, would officially resign first and allow William to keep his name on the Wasp for a while longer, although John Taylor would take over both papers immediately.
Joseph faced a dilemma that his resignation alone would not resolve. His critics read every word of the Times and Seasons, looking for opportunities to criticize Joseph and the Church. The paper was struggling financially. If he were to recant the Zarahemla article, his critics would have a field day. The same issue contained the letter that would become D&C 128. If he retracted the Zarahemla article, his critics would say D&C 128 was also false doctrine. He decided to let the article go without comment. It was never cited again or even mentioned (until the 20th Century by LDS scholars who sought to promote a Mesoamerican theory of geography).

Subsequent editorials and news items mentioned both North American and Central American archaeological findings in connection with the Book of Mormon, but this was consistent with what was generally believed. An earlier article in the Times and Seasons had observed that the Aztec people had traditions that contained “Traits of the Mosaic History” which came from migrations from Wisconsin to Mexico. The Wisconsin people, like other Great Lakes tribes, were descendants of Lehi; naturally the accounts of Moses would accompany Israelites wherever they went, even when the stories had been corrupted by Lamanite interpretations.

The only geographic detail that mattered, ultimately, was Cumorah in New York. In 1844, the year Joseph was murdered, a pamphlet in the UK republished Oliver’s letters yet again, including Letter VII. As long as Joseph was alive, everyone knew that Cumorah was in New York.

After Winchester and William Smith were excommunicated, they became persona non grata. Parley P. Pratt instructed Church members to stop buying Winchester’s books. William became President of the Quorum of the Twelve of the Strangites. In that capacity, he wrote a series of articles about the Book of Mormon, placing it in Central America.

Even today, William’s newspaper, the Wasp, is completely ignored at the recreated Printing Shop in Nauvoo. The Community of Christ has historical markers about the Wasp and reprints from its pages, but the LDS sites are silent about it. When I visited Nauvoo in 2015, the missionaries working in the printing shop had never even heard of the Wasp.

Despite his prominence in Nauvoo in 1841-1844—Winchester was President of the Nauvoo Literary Society in 1844—Winchester has largely vanished from Church history. Few LDS even know his name now. William Smith, too, has largely been ignored.

Once the Saints moved to Utah, the question of Book of Mormon geography was mostly ignored, except by Orson Pratt. Pratt did not adhere to the Zarahemla in Quirigua theory, however; he advocated a hemispheric model that put Zarahemla in South America near the Magdalena River.
.
Later, in the 1920s, scholars in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proposed that the Book of Mormon took place in a “limited geography” much smaller than the hemispheric model. They settled on Central America. LDS scholars began adopting these ideas.

A dilemma arose. If Cumorah was in New York, how could all the rest of the Book of Mormon take place in Central America? The short answer: it couldn’t. This led to the development of the two-Cumorah theory; i.e., the New York Cumorah is only the place where Moroni buried the one set of plates in the stone and cement box. The “real” Cumorah—the site of the final battles of the Nephites and Lamanites—was located in Central America.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Church Historian and member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recognized that this “two-Cumorah” theory would cause members of the Church to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. He denounced the theory. However, LDS scholars ignored him and continued developing the idea. When he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve in the 1950s, President Smith reiterated his warning about the two-Cumorah theory. Again, he was ignored by LDS scholars.

By the 1980s, the two-Cumorah Mesoamerican theory had become so widely accepted that it appeared in the Ensign magazine. Artwork based on the Mesoamerican theory became ubiquitous in Church meeting houses, magazines, media, manuals, and web pages.

Letter VII was ignored by the scholars. A symposium at BYU on the life of Oliver Cowdery included a section on Oliver’s letters, but did not mention Oliver’s observation about Cumorah. Letter VII cannot be found on lds.org except in one footnote in an article about Moroni’s message to Joseph Smith. It is included in the Joseph Smith Papers because it was included in Joseph’s journal, but it is without comment.

LDS scholarly publications have published dozens of articles promoting the Mesoamerican theory. The prevailing consensus about Cumorah was expressed in a book titled Mormon’s Codex, published by Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. There, the author, John L. Sorenson, wrote, “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd.”

In other words, modern LDS scholars think Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII is “manifestly absurd.”
LDS scholars have highly praised Mormon’s Codex. Terryl Givens wrote the Foreword, saying “So influential has Sorenson’s work on the Book of Mormon geography been that there is widespread consensus among believing scholarsin support of what is now called the ‘Sorenson model,’ which identifies the scripture’s setting within a Mesoamerican locale.” (emphasis added)
If it is not already evident to readers of my blogs, I completely disagree with the LDS scholars who endorse the Mesoamerican theory. To paraphrase Mormon’s Codex, I think the Mesoamerican model is manifestly absurd. I realize that sounds harsh to those who believe in the Mesoamerican model, but Mormon’s Codex sounds harsh to those of us who accept Letter VII.

In my view, there are only two approaches to Book of Mormon geography. You can accept Letter VII and believe the Hill Cumorah is in New York. Or you can reject Letter VII and put Cumorah somewhere else.

Where else doesn’t really matter.

Whether you concoct an abstract map, or put Cumorah in Mesoamerica, Peru, Baja, or Eritrea, you’re rejecting Letter VII.

For me, it’s an easy choice. Everything fits when you put the Cumorah pin in the map of New York.
________________

Why I wrote about all of this.

People ask me why I’ve spent so much time working on these issues and writing about them. The short answer: because I think Book of Mormon historicity is an increasingly important and critical issue.

As I mentioned at the outset, there is a train of thought that people should accept the Book of Mormon on faith; i.e., they should respond to the Spirit that bears witness as they read the book. That seems axiomatic to me; of course people should respond in this way. So I have no problem with this train of thought—but this should not be the only train allowed on the track.

Using the train analogy, let’s say there is a track leading to God. One train carries people who have faith. They believe based on what they’ve been taught, on what they’ve read, on what they feel. All good. (For that matter, people of other religions also exercise faith that brings them to God, but that’s a topic for another blog.)

But more than one train can travel on a track, and the scriptures directly tell us that not everyone has this kind of faith. “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yeah, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith (D&C 109:7). Faith is a gift of the Spirit, and everyone has different gifts.
As I read the promise in Moroni 10, it doesn’t apply exclusively to those who have a gift of faith to believe on words only. In verse 1, Moroni says he writes to his brethren, the Lamanites. IOW, the Lamanites are real, identifiable people. Then he gives a specific date: “more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.” Then he says he will “seal up these records,” showing they are real, tangible items. Then he tells his readers to “ponder in your hearts” the things you have read. Think about them. Then pray. The Holy Ghost will “manifest the truth of it unto you.”

Does this promise apply only to those on the faith train? I don’t think so. I think the Holy Ghost can manifest the truth of things through physical, extrinsic evidence as well.

In my view, this is the point Moroni makes starting in verse 8, when he emphasizes that “there are different ways that these gifts are administered.” Some have a gift to teach the word of wisdom, others the word of knowledge. That invokes D&C 109, where some don’t have faith so they can learn words of wisdom out of the best books.

Here’s where the issue of historicity seems to step on toes. I fully agree with Joseph Fielding Smith that the two-Cumorah theory causes members to become confused and disturbed in their faith. First, the two-Cumorah theory undermines the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses. According to LDS scholars, members should have complete confidence in Oliver as one of the Three Witnesses, but shouldn’t have confidence in him as the author of Letter VII. In other words, they ask you to believe what Oliver said about the restoration of the Priesthood, but they also ask you not to believe what he said about the repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

I find this irrational and confusing.

For decades, scholars have skirted the issue by avoiding Letter VII and discounting the repository as a “visionary” experience. But anti-Mormon web sites, easily accessible to anyone interested, hardly ignore Letter VII. People who search the Internet discover Letter VII and the disconnect with the current “widespread consensus among believing scholars.” 

Furthermore, it only exacerbates the problem when LDS scholars disagree with Joseph Fielding Smith. Now LDS students are supposed to follow the Prophet, but only if he agrees with the scholars. To me, that is completely backwards.

I won’t belabor the point. I commonly hear from people who were taught the Mesoamerican idea in Seminary, Institute, or Church schools (especially BYU), but who never believed it. That’s anecdotal, but what isn’t anecdotal is the number of people who leave the Church (or cease activity). Because the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, false teachings about the book undermine faith. It’s that simple. When a student doesn’t believe what his/her religious teachers say about one topic, what impact does that have on other things the teachers say?

Let’s be clear: I think the Mesoamerican theory is false, and CES teachers should abandon it as soon as possible. I think everyone who has promoted the Mesoamerican theory ought to reject it publicly and reaffirm the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery.

I know that’s a lot to ask. And as I’ve said, I’m fine with people having different ideas. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree about things.

What I’m not fine with is suppressing important information.

I think every member of the Church should read Letter VII and make a decision about whether to accept it or not.

Here’s another reason why I wrote this blog. For too long, I accepted and somewhat promoted the Mesoamerican theory. I taught it on my mission when I used Church-approved media. I taught it in my family and in Church, again using Church-approved media materials.

This blog is my repentance.
__________________

History of the blog and responses.
My first post was an analysis of a list of 37 reasons why North America could not be the setting for the Book of Mormon. It was purportedly written by BYU Professor John L. Sorenson, a prominent advocate of the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography. As I wrote in the post, I am skeptical of that he actually wrote the list, but it was a good starting point for my analysis.
Next I assessed some of the scholarly articles and books written by other proponents of the Mesoamerican theory. To me, the material contained some good points but also logical and factual errors accompanied by a strident, adversarial tone. I was curious where the theory originated. Some investigation into Church history led me to Benjamin Winchester, and the rest you already read in the first section.

What about the response?

I’m not going to name any individuals. I’ll just say that, generally, Church historians have been interested n the Church history elements of what I’ve written. They want to get things right. Some have told me I have a heavy burden to overcome because the tradition is so firmly established, and I’ve found that to be true. But eventually the right thing happens, and I’m hopeful the historians will further develop the things I’ve found.

Almost without exception, the Church historians want me to separate history issues from Book of Mormon geography issues.

For some of those who have written about Book of Mormon geography, it’s a different story.

[Trigger warning: if you are a Mesoamerican advocate or a contributor to the Interpreter, you should stop reading now.]

Anyone who has been reading this blog knows that while I like and respect LDS scholars as individuals, I don’t have high regard for most LDS scholarly publications. I say that because of their monolithic support and promotion of what I consider a false idea about Book of Mormon geography. Not only have the refused to publish alternative perspectives and ideas, but they have actively attacked alternatives. That leads me to think there are other fields that are equally problematic.

I have sought input and feedback from prominent LDS scholars who have written about Book of Mormon geography issues. I have given out pre-release versions of my books. But the first and only feedback I have received has been highly critical articles in the pages of the Interpreter. Not only that, but the Interpreter has refused to publish my responses. I’ve had people who read my books ask me about the Interpreter articles. When I explain that I have responded in detail, they are surprised because you would never know from the pages of the Interpreterthat there is another perspective, let alone that I have responses to the criticism.

I’m not the only one who has had similar experiences with the Interpreter.

Overall, because of its monolithic viewpoint advocacy I don’t consider the Interpreter a legitimate academic publication. It publishes enough good material to give it an appearance of scholarly, objective and rigorous academic standards, but in some areas I think it reflects poorly on LDS scholarship. It is a continuation of the worst of FARMS. I wouldn’t care except that there is a perception among many LDS readers that because the Executive Board, the Board of Editors and the Contributing Editors include BYU professors, there is a quasi-official imprimatur of credibility behind it. I’m hoping things will change at the Interpreter, but at this point, the only optimism I can summon for it is that other people, too, recognize the confirmation bias approach it takes.

That said, I think it is possible that LDS scholars will eventually take another look at these issues. I hope they do.

________________________

In the meantime, thanks to everyone interested in these topics. Keep studying, thinking (pondering), teaching one another, and praying. Eventually we will all know the truth, and the truth will make us free.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars