Nice graphic from https://www.missedinsunday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stone.jpg

One quotation is from an anonymous essay written by scholars who promoted their own theories and never bothered to quote what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said on the topic.

The other is from a President of the Church who served as an apostle for 62 years and 2 months, second only to David O. McKay (63 years and 9 months). He also served as Church historian for nearly 50 years.

http://www.threestory.com/apostles/apostles_all.html 

Source: About Central America

George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation 

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. 

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

G. Washington (his actual signature)

NOTE:

Shortly after the Thanksgiving Proclamation was written, it was lost for 130 years. The original document was written in long hand by William Jackson, secretary to the President, and was then signed by George Washington. It was probably misplaced or mixed in with some private papers when the US capitol moved from New York to Washington, D.C. The original manuscript was not placed in the National Archives until 1921 when Dr. J. C. Fitzpatrick, assistant chief of the manuscripts division of the Library of Congress found the proclamation at an auction sale being held at an art gallery in New York. Dr Fitzpatrick purchased the document for $300.00 for the Library of Congress, in which it now resides. It was the first official presidential proclamation issued in the United States.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

This summarizes my approach to Church history and Book of Mormon issues:

“Don’t just follow the trend… It’s good to think in terms of the physics approach or First Principles. Which is rather than reasoning by analogy, you boil things down to the most fundamental truths you can imagine and you reason up from there.” | Elon Musk

https://twitter.com/MuskUniversity/status/1595387142418890752

_____

Start with the most fundamental truths–what Joseph and Oliver said–and reason up from there. 

When we do that, the narrative makes sense. The New York Cumorah, the translation of the plates with the Urim and Thummim, the restoration of the Priesthood and temple keys, and all the rest.

In the process, we can set aside all the other commentary and speculation by modern intellectuals in the citation cartel.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Congratulations to Gospel Tangents for another series of important interviews.

One of the best M2C scholars is Brant Gardner. He’s a great guy, reasonable and open about his views. I like him personally and I respect his work. He recently did an interview with Gospel Tangents that may help everyone understand the issues better than before.

The interview is on youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5muVPVohwc

During the interview, he discussed the Heartland approach to Book of Mormon geography. In doing so, he clarified the reasons why M2Cers disagree with Heartland ideas. 

The clarification is most welcome. I hope Brant’s interview will lead to further dialog and respectful exchanges.

Here are some excerpts from the interview with time code and my commentary. 

Original in blue, my comments in red.

Excerpts:

1:03

Brant: What I would say is Mesoamericanists don’t look at the Book of Mormon, against Mesoamerica and try to justify it against somebody else’s theory. We’re not trying to say, “This is good, because it’s better than that, they had a problem here. But we don’t have that problem here.” That’s not what we’re concerned with. What we’re concerned with is saying, “Yeah, here’s a geography. Once we have the geography, what else does that teach us?” And so we’re very focused on learning that.

We start with a difference in terminology. Brant uses the perfectly legitimate term “Mesoamericanists.” However, that term glides over the key differences in our approaches. That’s why I use the term “M2Cers” to show it’s not just “Mesoamerica” we’re discussing, but the “Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs (M2C)” theory. Some M2Cers euphemistically refer to the “Mesoamerican/limited geography” model to avoid mentioning Cumorah. We’ll discuss below why Cumorah is such a critical point. 

Obviously, Brant is speaking for himself when he says he’s not comparing models. Book of Mormon Central has an elaborate “test” that they use to evaluate pros and cons of alternative theories. In my view, their “test” is flawed because it is based on the assumptions implicit in their M2C models. As we’ll see, Brant’s views are also based on M2C-driven assumptions that are not unreasonable, but are nevertheless arbitrary and outcome oriented.

I completely agree with Brant when he says: “once we have the geography, what else does that teach us?” However, we have different views on what it teaches, as we’ll see below.

1:39

They have a different purpose in mind, they have different interests. The few times that we have sort of

interacted and said, “Well, here are some of the things that we see as issues and problems with the geography you’re putting forth.” They’re not very interested in them, and tend to dismiss them. 

Brant may be referring to something I’m unaware of, but I’ve engaged with all the issues and problems that M2Cers have identified to me. I think it’s important for everyone to be crystal clear about the facts, assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses they use. If I haven’t addressed any of the issues and problems that M2Cers have raised, I hope some M2Cers will let me know. My email for this topic is lostzarahemla@gmail.com.

So, if they’re not interested in discussions on

2:08

that level, they can go build their models, and try to do what we’re doing here. So, it isn’t so much that we don’t acknowledge them. We have tried. We do see some problems with the geography. But the focus isn’t to try to diminish anything else in the Book of Mormon, if somebody else comes up with a good argument, yeah, that’s wonderful. I haven’t seen any that fit the detail and complexity that I see in Mesoamerica. So, I’d much rather spend my time on that than arguing with somebody else over geography. I’m not interested.

Another great point by Brant that I agree with to the extent he is arguing in favor of multiple working hypotheses. People can believe whatever they want, and if a particular theory works for someone, then great. We can have unity in diversity. 

That said, I don’t find his point about “detail and complexity” very useful because that amounts to John Sorenson’s “correspondences” approach. The M2Cers use one of two methodologies. First, they find elements of Mesoamerican culture that are fairly ubiquitous in human cultures (e.g., banners) and then claim it “corresponds” to something in the Book of Mormon. Second, they find an element of Mesoamerican culture and then read it into the text (e.g., volcanoes). These methodologies do generate some detail and complexity, but it’s merely bias confirmation; i.e., as Brant says here, once they find the geography, what does that teach us? Naturally, every proposed setting can teach us something about the text; if we bend the text to fit the setting, we can find all kinds of details between the lines.

2:55

GT: Even though you’re not interested, do you see any strengths and or weaknesses that you’d like to share with the Heartland theory?

3:11

Brant: The strengths and weaknesses of the Heartland theory? GT: Yes, of the Heartland theory. Brant: I think it has two strengths. One is it allows people the sort of culturally historical ties to the New York 

Hill as the Hill Cumorah. Without question, that was a theme in the early church, people believed that. And the fact that they make a geography that fits, that allows them to keep that, that’s a strength. 

Here I don’t disagree with what Brant says, but with what he doesn’t say; i.e. what he omits. This is the censorship problem I have with M2Cers.

A basic premise of M2C is that Joseph Smith eventually (and ignorantly or speculatively) adopted a false tradition about Cumorah that originated with someone else. They say (condescendingly) that “people” in the “early church” believed the Hill Cumorah was in New York because of “culturally historical ties.” I refer to this as the “erroneous speculation” narrative. 

While I appreciate their need to frame the Cumorah issue this way, and it makes sense for them to shift the focus away from the contrary evidence from Church history, Latter-day Saints would be much better informed if the M2Cers made their position clear instead of obscuring the issue the way Brant does here.

The M2C scholars have successfully used the “erroneous speculation” narrative to repudiate relevant Church history sources. I’ll review a few here. Lucy Mack Smith reported that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah the first time he met Joseph Smith, and that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. The M2Cers say Lucy was influenced by the “later” false tradition about Cumorah, but as early as 1830, Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt were teaching the Lamanites that the hill was named Cumorah anciently. Later, of course, as Assistant President of the Church, Oliver explicitly taught that the hill in New York is the very hill identified in the text as Cumorah and Ramah. He also described visiting the repository of Nephite records in the hill. David Whitmer reported that he first heard the name Cumorah in 1829 directly from the divine messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah. There are additional references, and the New York Cumorah has been taught repeatedly, including by members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

In my view, the “erroneous speculation” narrative is irrational. The Book of Mormon text never mentions America or even the western hemisphere. The only reason why we focus on “the Americas” is because the same people who taught the New York Cumorah said the events took place “in this country” or “on this continent.” There is no rational basis to reject what they taught about Cumorah while adhering to what they said about America.

 

Rather than reject the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah because those teachings contradict their own interpretation of the text, students of the Book of Mormon should incorporate the New York Cumorah into their interpretations of the text.  

It’s a strength that it fits the

3:49

most common reading of certain prophecies about Promised Land.

I probably read those very differently, but they’re very much in line with how they have been traditionally read. And I think that also is a strength. 

Here I agree with Brant that there are multiple ways to read those prophecies. At any rate, in our day the prophets have shifted the focus from specific gathering places in America to gathering places throughout the world; i.e., the stakes of Zion instead of a central gathering place. 

I think the weakness is everything else. Let me give you an example. The last time I

4:15

remember looking at the Mesoamerican [Heartland] geographic model, you have to find a narrow neck of land. Every Book of Mormon geographer knows you have to find a narrow neck of land. 

Here is one of the best examples of disagreements about the text. People frequently ask me, “Where is the narrow neck of land?” I always reply, “Ether 10:20.” That is the only reference in the text to the narrow neck of land.

There are two other references geographical necks: a “narrow neck” (but not of land), and a “small neck of land.” Many people infer that these different terms refer to the same feature. I agree that’s a plausible reading, but it’s not a mandatory reading or even the most logical reading. 

An alternative reading sees these as different features; hence, the different terms.

Additionally, in Joseph Smith’s era, the term “narrow neck” was commonly used to refer to geographical features much smaller than on a hemispheric or continental scale. I’ve documented multiple uses of the term by George Washington and others during the Revolutionary War describing the locations of battles, troop movements, etc.  

And if I remember correctly, they were looking at

4:27

a narrow neck of land just north of like, Buffalo and the Great Lakes, there’s a narrow neck that kind of leads up, fits narrow neck really, really well. It doesn’t fit the Book of Mormon text, because that narrow neck is northwest of the Hill Cumorah in New York. And so that puts the Hill Cumorah to the

southeast of the narrow neck. In the text of the Book of Mormon, it says you have to go north of the narrow neck and then east in order to get to Cumorah. So, it’s completely contrary, you’ve got got the wrong narrow neck, if that’s your narrow neck. And I don’t know where you’re going to find a narrow neck anywhere south of that. So the narrow neck doesn’t work. 

The idea of a single “narrow neck of land” connecting the land northward and the land southward relies on another premise; i.e., that the terms “northward” and “southward” are proper nouns instead of relative terms. In my view, those terms are obviously relative. Salt Lake City is “northward” if you’re writing from Provo, but it’s “southward” if you’re writing from Ogden. The text gives us many proper nouns of particular locations, both cities and lands. The M2C assumption that Mormon used vague geographical directions to refer to specific, unchanging areas throughout the text introduces unnecessary ambiguity and confusion. It is much simpler and consistent with ordinary usage of language to interpret these terms as relative.

Distances have a problem. 

5:11

The text never delineates distances except as a function of time. There are no miles or kilometers. People have speculated a wide range of possible distances, such as “it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite.” (Alma 22:32)

Even in this passage, Mormon tells us nothing about the mode of travel, yet people have elaborated on this to derive precise distances.

There’s no horses to ride on. So, you’re on foot traffic. rivers, right?”

5:23

Yeah. And he does river travel. There was an article that I know about and will not mention until it’s published, but I’ve read the draft. And it looks at the idea of river travel. And, absolutely, river traveled down river helps. Up river, it’s faster to walk in many cases. So, the rivering idea is really good if you only have to move in one direction. So, if they’re always going downstream, it works. As long as nobody ever goes in the other direction, it works. Except they always go in the other direction. So it’s just not going to work in the article that will give the documentation on that–well, the way publication works, you won’t see it for a year, but somewhere a year from now.

Source: About Central America

There’s a survey and discussion going on here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74908-bom-geography-theory-survey/

(click to enlarge)

It’s another fascinating discussion that highlights the confusion brought on by ignoring the teachings of the prophets.

As usual, the discussion skirts the simple reality that the first time he met Joseph Smith, Moroni identified the hill where the records were buried as “Cumorah.” Lucy Mack Smith recorded that and Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt taught it during their mission to the Lamanites in 1830. David Whitmer first heard the name “Cumorah” in 1829 from the divine messenger who took the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah before taking the plates of Nephi to Fayette.

Any lingering questions about Cumorah were resolved when Oliver Cowdery, as Assistant President of the Church, explained it was a fact that this Cumorah in New York is the same place where the final battles took place among the Jaredites and Lamanites/Nephites.

Subsequent prophets reiterated this basic fact, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

All of this is public knowledge, easily accessible in the Joseph Smith Papers and General Conference reports. It’s difficult to imagine how it could be any more clear.

_____

Nevertheless, certain RLDS and LDS scholars decided Joseph and Oliver (and Moroni), as well as their successors, were wrong, based on these scholars’ own subjective interpretations of the text. Untethered by the New York Cumorah, they debate about what the text means, where the events described could possibly have taken place, etc. 

The ensuring confusion endures to the present, as the discussion about this survey demonstrates.

The musings of these scholars and their followers remind me of the confusion Paul faced on Mars Hill in Athens.

While the Athenians were speculating about the Unknown God they worshipped, Paul declared the true God unto the people.

Likewise, while scholars speculate about Book of Mormon geography, Moroni declared the true location of Cumorah, which Oliver Cowdery reiterated was a fact.

Why should the Lord reveal any more about Book of Mormon geography when most Church members have rejected and repudiated what He already revealed?

The next step, of course, is to interpret the text in light of the New York Cumorah instead of making up our own interpretations to reject the New York Cumorah.

_____

16 ¶ Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

 18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

 20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 ¶ Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

(Acts 17:16–31)

Source: About Central America