Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

What if the prophets were correct about Cumorah?

Questions about the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon have led a lot of people to question their faith, yet our most prominent LDS scholars continue to discredit the prophets on this topic.

If Latter-day Saints accepted what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah, we would have a more profound understanding of the text and greater unity in the Church. 

Instead of confusing students (and everyone else) by insisting that Joseph and Oliver were wrong, our scholars would teach that Joseph and Oliver were honest, reliable, and credible.

Instead of the chaos arising from people advocating their own ideas about the location of Cumorah, everyone could unite behind the prophets.

Instead of blithely pretending historicity doesn’t matter, we would all see how “proof of its divine authenticity” (to use Joseph’s words) serves to reinforce the convincing power of the Book of Mormon.

Such unity and understanding would reinvigorate efforts to share the Book of Mormon with the world.

What impedes this progress?

_____

Despite the effort to “de-correlate” the New York Cumorah by removing it from Church history,* everyone can read those teachings. Even the most adamant M2Cers such as FAIRLDS and Book of Mormon Central reluctantly acknowledge that the prophets have taught that Cumorah is in New York.

Why do they fight these teachings?

The M2Cers invoke four main reasons.

1. Conflation of teachings. Throughout Church history, there has been a clear distinction between the fact of the New York Cumorah and various opinions/speculation about the location of other events. A key point: the location of Cumorah doesn’t determine the location of other events. There are hundreds of potential sites for Book of Mormon events, and untold possibilities have been long lost to history. Yet modern LDS scholars conflate the two separate topics to confuse people into thinking the fact of Cumorah was mere speculation. That’s outcome-driven revisionist history that everyone can see.

2. “No evidence.” M2Cers insist that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah because there is “no evidence” in New York. But that’s a misreading of both the evidence and what the Book of Mormon itself says.

It’s true that there is “no evidence” in western New York of the type of society the M2Cers have dreamed up to fit their Mesoamerican theory. But there is also “no evidence” in the Book of Mormon itself for such a society. The text never refers to massive stone pyramids, volcanoes or the three Js of Mesoamerica: jaguars, jade, and jungles.

It reality, there is plenty of extrinsic evidence in western New York, but it’s not what the M2Cers seek. If people accepted the teachings of the prophets, they would interpret the text accordingly.

The extrinsic evidence (archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography) corroborates what Moroni said when he told Joseph that the abridged record was “written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home near Palmyra. The evidence corroborates the actual descriptions in the text, and such evidence should inform our interpretation of the text.

3. “Doesn’t fit.” M2Cers insist that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah because western New York doesn’t fit their interpretation of the geography-related passages in the text. But insisting on only one possible interpretation of the text violates a fundamental principle of textual interpretation.

Anyone who reads the Book of Mormon can see that the passages describing geography are relatively vague. The vagueness of the term “land northward” is compounded by the question whether it is a proper noun or a relative term. In Utah, Salt Lake City is both the land northward and the land southward, depending on whether the reference is Provo or Ogden. 

The terms “narrow neck,” “small neck,” and “narrow neck of land” could refer to the same geographical feature or to different features. The term “head of the river” could refer to the source or a confluence. Common English usage circa early 1800s finds examples of multiple meanings for these and other terms.  

4. Heartlanders are nationalists. Lately some M2Cers have resorted to a straw man fallacy to deter the Latter-day Saints from learning about the teachings of the prophets regarding Cumorah. They claim that people who accept the New York Cumorah are American nationalists. In reality, Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets have a variety of view about other Book of Mormon settings. Many Latter-day Saints who accept the New York Cumorah don’t live in the U.S. and couldn’t care less about American politics. 

_____

The question boils down to whether we accept or repudiate the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. 

We’ve discussed all of this before. Some LDS are far better informed than others about all of this.

Those interested in more detail can peruse this blog or books on this topic that have more detail and footnotes, such as Between these Hills and Letter VII. 

___

* The “de-correlation” of Cumorah is evident not only in the efforts of FAIRLDS, Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter, but also in Saints, Vol. 1, the editorial content of the Joseph Smith Papers, Opening the Heavens, the BYU and CES fantasy maps, and pretty much every recent commentary on the Book of Mormon and most artwork. Despite all of this, the teachings of the prophets remain part of the historical record.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Classic Post #6 – Agree and Agree-to-disagree chart

This comparison chart compares M2C (the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory) with 1NYC (the One New York Cumorah).

Proposition

M2C

1NYC

1. The most important aspect of the Book of Mormon is its message.

Agree

Agree

2. The Book of Mormon is an inspired translation of an actual ancient record of actual people who lived in the real world.

Agree

Agree

3. The ultimate objective of our research/writing is to motivate people to read the Book of Mormon and strengthen their faith in Christ as a result.

Agree

Agree

4. Another objective of our research/writing is to help people better understand the text of the book by understanding its setting, culture and context.

Agree

Agree

5. The Church has no official position on where Book of Mormon events took place.

Agree

Agree

6. In Letter VII, Oliver Cowdery identified the valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York as the location of the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites.

Agree

Agree

7. Joseph Smith instructed his scribes to copy Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, into his journal as part of his life story.

Agree

Agree

8. Joseph Smith gave permission to Benjamin Winchester to republish Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, in his newspaper called the Gospel Reflector

Agree

Agree

9. Don Carlos republished Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, in the 1842 Church newspaper called the Times and Seasons (T&S).

Agree

Agree

10. On Sept. 9, 1841, Dr. Bernhisel gave Wilford Woodruff a copy of the Stephens’ popular archaeology books about Central America to give to Joseph Smith

Agree

Agree

11. On Nov. 5, 1841, Wilford Woodruff wrote a letter to Dr. Bernhisel that is not extant.

Agree

Agree

12. A thank-you letter dated Nov. 16, 1841, was sent to Bernhisel on Joseph Smith’s behalf. No one knows who wrote the letter because the handwriting remains unidentified and no journals mention it.

Agree

Agree

13. A series of editorials were published in the T&S during 1842 that linked the Book of Mormon to archaeological findings in North and Central America. They cited the Stephens books and archaeology books by Josiah Priest. All were published either anonymously or over the signature of Ed. for Editor.

Agree

Agree

14. From February 15 through October 15, 1842, the boilerplate of the T&S said the paper was edited, printed, and published by Joseph Smith.

Agree

Agree

15. Joseph Smith originally obtained the plates from a stone box Moroni constructed out of stone and cement in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Agree

Agree

16. Brigham Young said Oliver told him that he (Oliver) and Joseph had made at least two visits to a room in the Hill Cumorah in New York that contained piles of records and ancient Nephite artifacts.

Agree

Agree

17. Mormon said he buried all the Nephite records in the Hill Cumorah (Morm. 6:6), the scene of the final battles of the Nephites, except he kept out the plates he gave to his son Moroni to finish the record.

Agree

Agree

18. D&C 128:20 reads, “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed,” followed by references to other events that took place in New York.

Agree

Agree

19. The geography passages in the Book of Mormon are subject to a variety of interpretations.

Agree

Agree

20. To date, apart from Moroni’s stone box and the plates and other objects Joseph Smith possessed and showed to the Witnesses, no artifact or archaeological site that can be directly linked to the Book of Mormon has been found anywhere.

Agree

Agree

21. Cultural characteristics can be discerned from the text.

Agree

Agree

22. The New Jerusalem Ether wrote about is located in Jackson County, Missouri.

Agree

Agree

23. Mayan civilization collapsed around 800 A.D. and Mayans migrated to North America, where they lived for several hundred years before returning to Central America.

Agree

Agree

24. The Newark Ohio earthworks are the largest earthworks in the world and demonstrate knowledge of astronomy and geometry.

Agree

Agree

25. There were a million ancient mounds in North America before the Europeans arrived.

Agree

Agree

26. There are two million skeletons buried in mounds in Illinois alone.

Agree

Agree

27. As an Apostle and Church Historian, Joseph Fielding Smith said the two-Cumorah theory caused members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. He reiterated this when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve in the 1950s in his book Doctrines of Salvation.

Agree

Agree

28. The land of Zarahemla is north of the land of Nephi and lower in elevation than the land of Nephi.

Agree

Agree

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

FAIRLDS, Cumorah, and plain and precious things

Nephi said “there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book” (1 Nephi 13:28), referring to the Bible. Readers wonder what things were taken and how were they taken away. Various authors have offered possible answers.

It’s even more interesting to observe the process playing out in our day among the Latter-day Saints.
Presumably, the ancient scribes thought they had good reason to edit the scriptures.
In our day, we have a group of LDS apologists, many of whom manage and contribute to an organization  now known as FAIR (aka FAIRMORMON and FAIRLDS), who are determined to take away plain and precious things from our well-documented Church history. 
Presumably, these equivalents of ancient scribes also think they have good reason to revise Church history. But really, there are no good reasons for what they’re doing. 
Simply put, these LDS apologists will not “understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.” (2 Nephi 32:7)
This is a timely topic because critics of the Church have recently pointed out how these LDS apologists have changed their narratives, leaving faithful Latter-day Saints wondering who is more honest and accurate: the critics or FAIR?
_____
One of the “plain and precious” truths regarding the Book of Mormon relates to its divine authenticity as an actual history.
In 1835, President Oliver Cowdery spelled out this truth “as plain as words can be” when he wrote the first detailed history of the Restoration with the assistance of Joseph Smith. Responding to critics who claimed the Book of Mormon was fiction, President Cowdery emphasized the fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill where Moroni had deposited the plates; i.e., the hill Cumorah in western New York. 
We can all read this account right in Joseph Smith’s own history, here:
The contemporaries of Joseph and Oliver knew about Cumorah because Moroni had identified the hill as Cumorah when he first met Joseph. Moroni explained that the record had been “written and deposited” not far from Joseph’s home. Church leaders who knew Joseph and Oliver, as well as those who succeeded Joseph, reiterated the truth about Cumorah repeatedly and consistently. A partial list is here: https://www.mobom.org/modern-prophets-on-cumorah
Because they have convinced themselves that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, groups such as FAIRLDS have by necessity repudiated the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. 

Instead of heeding the teachings of the prophets as their guide, they adopted the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory (M2C) originally invented in the early 1900s by RLDS scholar L.E. Hills. M2C claims the “real” Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico while the “so-called Cumorah” in New York was merely a false tradition that Joseph, along with his contemporaries and successors, adopted in their speculative ignorance.

We wouldn’t care what these apologists think–people can believe whatever they want to believe–except that they have been teaching M2C to generations of young Latter-day Saints.
When I was at BYU, I fell for M2C because I trusted my professors who were presented as “experts” on the Book of Mormon. I read all the FARMS newsletters and books, attended the conferences, etc. 

Scholars such as Royal Skousen and Jack Welch have deliberately manipulated Church history to eliminate any references to Cumorah. 

The editors at the Joseph Smith Papers consistently purge Cumorah from the historical context (although they can’t change the actual historical sources, fortunately). 
Even the Saints book, Volume 1, censored Cumorah.
By now, the “plain and precious” truth about Cumorah has been all but lost. Only those “engaged learners” who still study the teachings of the prophets know about the New York Cumorah.
_____
This topic was highlighted in social media recently, as we’ll see below. I blogged about it five years ago, here.
It has to do with a letter dated October 18, 1990, from the Office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded to an inquiry from a Church member in Oklahoma City. The letter reads: 
“I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgement and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”
There is (or should be) nothing controversial about that letter. It merely states a well-known fact from Church history, which anyone can read. 
Just 15 years earlier, in the October 1975 General Conference, President Marion G. Romney of the First Presidency had explained the New York Cumorah in detail, with language “as plain as words can be.” 
Three years later, in the October 1978 General Conference, Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Quorum of the Twelve reiterated it once again. Nothing had changed by 1990. No one claimed any new revelation to usurp what Moroni told Joseph Smith in 1823 or any of the ensuing teachings that corroborated the New York Cumorah. 
However, a group of M2C-advocating apologists sought to discredit the 1990 letter, the way they had been discrediting the previous teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. They are affiliated with FAIR, which rejects the credibility and reliability of all Church historical sources and statements by LDS General Authorities that teach the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York. 
The 1990 letter was signed by F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, a common practice, so FAIR focused on Elder Watson. FAIR’s position is set forth on its webpage, here: 
In January 2022, the podcast Mormonism Live, which often pokes fun at LDS apologists, released two episodes, one on the “Two-Cumorah theory” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoTsWIbTy2M (8,000 views) and one on “Mormon Apologist Skullduggery – The Mystery of the Second Watson Letter” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tYNWFkO6o&t=5s (8,300 views). 
The podcasts explain the tactics FAIR uses to persuade the Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. They cleverly use the apologists’ own arguments to deconstruct the New York Cumorah, and then point out how the Mesoamerican setting is not credible. 
It seems obvious to me that FAIR (and other M2C promoters) and Mormonism Live are essentially collaborating on creating a false narrative about Church history regarding Cumorah (as well as other issues). 
I don’t object to anyone believing whatever they want to believe, but both FAIR and the critics at Mormonism Live refuse to consider, let alone present, the faithful alternative narrative that corroborates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. Their readers and listeners are left with the mistaken sense that they have been told the whole story.
We can expect critics to present only one interpretation of the evidence. That’s what critics do, and it’s popular because it’s entertaining and confirms the biases of their audience.
But it continues to astound faithful Latter-day Saints that organizations such as FAIR refuse to acknowledge and respect alternative faithful narratives about such a basic, plain and precious teaching as the New York Cumorah. 
_____    
Elder Watson released a public statement in January, 2022, to clarify the facts to avoid further misunderstanding and confusion. It has been posted various places, but you can see it here:
If you look at the attachment to Elder Watson’s response, you’ll see screen captures of the FAIR response as it was in January.
FAIR received a copy of Watson’s January 2022 statement but declined to put it on their website. Instead, they inserted a new paragraph (without explaining or dating the insertion).
(Some have complained that the fax was private and should not be cited–but why would Watson send a private note to FARMS if it was not anticipated that it would be used to answer the questions being put to FARMS? The letter has long been available publicly, since its text was published by FARMS soon after its receipt.)
That paragraph is typical of the FAIR apologists. It casts aspersions without addressing the issues or explaining the context. 
Few people will take the time to compare the FAIR website to the podcasts on Mormonism Live (and I don’t recommend either source), but it’s easy to see which one is more historically accurate. 
Regardless, both FAIR and the critics teach basically the same thing; i.e., that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.
_____
At some point after I blogged about this in 2017, FAIR added two paragraphs that deserve comment. The first cites Saints, Volume 1.

More recently, the Church has issued other statements and taken further action

Saints: Vol. 1 (2018): The Church’s official history does not name the hill in which Joseph found the plates.

The Church’s official history, Saints, tells the story of Joseph’s recovery of the plates from the hill near his home. The account does not, however,  ever use the label “Cumorah” for the hill. This is an odd omission if the official prophetic stance on the Hill Cumorah is fixed on the New York site.[3]

This is hardly an “odd omission.” It’s an entirely predictable omission, given the agenda of the editors of Saints, as I discussed here:
FAIR must think their readers are fools to make this argument. When the problem is FAIR seeking to take away the “plain and precious things” about Cumorah, it hardly bolsters their argument for them to point out another egregious example of manipulating Church history to create a false historical narrative present.
To summarize: 

1. Saints creates a false narrative present; i.e., characters in the book do not have 1827-1844 ideas about the New York Cumorah that is well established in original sources. 

 2. Instead, the characters in Saints know nothing about Cumorah, a reflection of the late 20th century “two Cumorahs” theory created by M2C intellectuals.

 3. In responses to criticism, the editors of Saints published an essay that seeks to explain their censorship of Cumorah with a series of inconsistent and counterfactual justifications.

 4. The editors of Saints ultimately admit they censored the term Cumorah to “uphold” so-called “neutrality,” a euphemism for accommodating the M2C theory of Book of Mormon geography. 

That FAIR gets away with this type of apologetics indicates that FAIR readers are lazy learners who merely want to be told what to think.
_____
Now, let’s look at the next addition to FAIR’s post about the 1990 letter (below). They quote from the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon Geography.
Here, we should all remember that what is posted on the Church web page now is not the original version of this entry. The original version repeated much of the FAIR apologetic rhetoric. After I pointed out that some of it was misleading and incorrect, the Church released a revision three weeks later that corrected some, but not all, of the errors.
It’s also important to note that the entry does not even mention Cumorah. Thus FAIR uses it to perpetuate the M2C apologist effort to conflate two separate issues:
1. The New York Cumorah, which has been well established as a fact by the teachings of Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors.
2. The uncertainty about other locations, which has also been well established by the teachings of Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors.
The entry refers to “numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book.” Those opinions have ranged from South to Central to North America. Orson Pratt’s footnotes in the 1879 Book of Mormon reflected the opinion nature of those ideas.
However, the New York Cumorah was never expressed as an opinion. Oliver Cowdery explicitly stated it was a fact. Lucy Mack Smith related it as a fact, based on what Joseph told her about Moroni’s visit. David Whitmer stated it as a fact. In all the teachings of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors as Church leaders, the New York Cumorah was never proposed as an opinion. Orson Pratt’s footnotes in the 1879 Book of Mormon showed that Cumorah was a fact, in contrast to the other possible sites for Book of Mormon events.
Thus, the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon Geography doesn’t even address Cumorah.
Finally, notice the last paragraph of FAIR’s addition. They claim neutrality on Book of Mormon geography. This is the same rhetorical trick employed by Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, etc.
Yet every reader of these publications can see that they promote M2C exclusively and attack the New York Cumorah whenever they are forced to mention it. 
M2C is embedded in the very logo of Book of Mormon Central and FARMS, which are two of the facades of the Potemkin village along with FAIR.
FAIR is so brazen that right on the same page where they claim neutrality, they include the M2C logo and a link to another anti-New York Cumorah article!

It’s awesomely amazing that anyone falls for this duplicity.
With all of this in mind, read FAIR’s explanation and see what you think. 

The Church also addressed issues of Book of Mormon geography in the Gospel Topics essays available on the Church’s official website

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. …

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.[4]

In accordance with this request from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles, FAIR’s only position is that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient record, whose events occurred somewhere in the ancient Americas.

the end
 
 

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Classic Post #5 – If BYU believed Joseph and Oliver… some FAQs

In the previous post, I pointed out the difference between fantasy and real-world maps. Here I answer FAQs about what’s going on at BYU.
___________________

BYU Professor teaching BYU’s fantasy map for
Book of Mormon Central, featuring the M2C logo

Question: Why does BYU now require every student to learn a fantasy map of the Book of Mormon?

Answer: Because BYU refuses to accept the clear, unambiguous declaration by Joseph and Oliver about the Hill Cumorah being in New York. Joseph and Oliver explained it in Letter VII, which you can read about here. BYU doesn’t even want students to know about Letter VII.


Question: Why does BYU reject Letter VII? 

Answer: Because BYU wants students to believe that Joseph and Oliver were confused speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York. BYU wants students to believe everything Joseph and Oliver taught except what they taught about the location of the Hill Cumorah (and except for the translation of the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim).

Question: Why does BYU question the reliability and credibility of Joseph and Oliver?

Answer: Because BYU’s fantasy map of Book of Mormon geography has no place for what Joseph and Oliver taught about the real Cumorah in New York.

You can see the full map here: http://bom.byu.edu/

Question: Why does this fantasy map look like Central America, except turned 90 degrees?

Answer: Because BYU used the standard Mesomania interpretation of the Book of Mormon, with a north-flowing River Sidon, a narrow neck that is an isthmus, etc. However, BYU doesn’t allow the teaching of Mesomania any longer. Instead, they created a fantasy map that resembles Central America, but is not an actual place anywhere on the planet. They made it “real” by assuming north = north. Otherwise, it’s basically the same Mesoamerican map that BYU has taught for decades. We can be glad that at least they’re not saying North = East like the Mesomania proponents still do. But that’s the only real-world element of this fantasy map.

Question: What are the short-term ramifications of BYU teaching a fantasy map?

Answer: In the short-term, it appears that most first-year students at BYU will accept whatever they’re taught in BYU religion classes because (i) they assume their teachers are approved by the Brethren and only teach truth, (ii) they want to pass classes, (iii) they are more focused on their majors and their social life, (iv) they don’t know Church history (i.e., Letter VII and the teachings of all of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors), and (v) they don’t have time/interest to focus on the Book of Mormon so they let their teachers tell them what to think. But there are some BYU students who recognize that teaching the Book of Mormon took place in a fantasy, video-game world is equivalent to teaching that the Book of Mormon is fiction. And there are a few BYU students who know about Letter VII and reject this fantasy map concept.

Question: What are the long-term ramifications of BYU teaching a fantasy map?

Answer: At some point, whether as missionaries or while dealing with co-workers/friends/family who have left the Church or otherwise challenge their testimonies, BYU students will learn what Joseph and Oliver actually taught about Cumorah in New York in Letter VII. They will think back on the fantasy map they were taught at BYU and experience cognitive dissonance between fantasy and reality. Some will live with the cognitive dissonance by ignoring it, putting it “on the shelf,” etc. Others will seek to resolve the cognitive dissonance by questioning everything they were taught by their religion professors. Some will begin to wonder why they’re supposed to believe everything Joseph and Oliver taught except this one point about the Hill Cumorah. For some, this fantasy map will become a crack in their testimony that will widen and lead them away from the Church. They will become part of the statistics that 40% of returned missionaries are leaving the Church within 3 years of returning home. Others–hopefully the majority–will recognize this fantasy map for what it is–a manifestation of M2C ideology–and reject it in favor of what Joseph and Oliver actually taught.

Question: How can I learn more about what BYU is doing?

Answer: There is a helpful interview about the fantasy map here:

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/08/02/book-mormon-geography/

Here are some observations about quotations from the interview:

“that will help bring the scriptures to life in a way that is historically accurate, “

Except there is zero historical accuracy with the Book of Mormon being placed in a fantasy world, especially when the actual history of Cumorah, explained in Letter VII, is censored.
“we can make their road to learning a little less bumpy, a little more exciting, and a little more real and relevant.”
A map of a fantasy world is definitely “a little more exciting” than the real world, but it is the opposite of “more real and relevant.” It turns the Book of Mormon into a fantasy book of wisdom, equivalent to the Lord of the Rings.  
“If somebody finds something in their reading that says, “Oh, my goodness, this location can’t be there where they’ve got on the map.” Give us feedback, we can make version 40.” 
Unless, of course, your reading involves what Joseph and Oliver said. No version of this fantasy map will ever include what Joseph and Oliver actually taught about Cumorah. I’ve asked them to include such a variation, but they’ve refused.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Thought experiment #2: What if Joseph Smith actually translated the plates?

It’s amazing that we’ve reached the point where proposing that Joseph Smith translated the plates is merely a thought experiment, but that’s where we are.

It’s amazing because what Joseph and Oliver claimed is the simplest, clearest explanation. It is also corroborated by the facts. 

Nevertheless, our LDS historians have agreed with long-time critics that Joseph Smith didn’t really translate the Book of Mormon in any normal sense of the term. Instead, they claim he merely read words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH). [I’ll address the SITH-sayers below.]

One well-known LDS scholar, Royal Skousen, has set forth the obvious and inevitable end-game of the SITH theory:

“Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true [i.e., regarding the 116 pages]; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.” (emphasis added)

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

Our “top” LDS scholars also claim Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the New York Cumorah, and that Joseph went along with that false narrative. Given that approach, it’s a small step for them to also reach Brother Skousen’s conclusion about the translation. 

_____

http://www.lettervii.com/2021/08/translation-art.html

By far, the simplest explanation for the Book of Mormon is the one Joseph gave; i.e., he copied characters off the plates, translated them by means of the Urim and Thummim, and then proceeded to translate the engravings on the plates.

He explained it this way in the Elders’ Journal in 1838.

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which, I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

By contrast, SITH requires a series of complex assumptions, starting with speculation about the identity of the actual translator.

Joseph as translator answers the claims of the critics.

SITH not only doesn’t answer the claims of the critics, but it raises more questions.

_____

For those who accept SITH, consider this thought experiment:

What if Joseph Smith actually translated the plates?

The thought experiment requires context. Currently, the prevailing theory about the translation among both LDS intellectuals and critics of the Church is that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH).

Yet SITH is one of the principal reasons why people lose faith in the Book of Mormon for several reasons. 

1. SITH lets people assume Church leaders were misleading people when they taught that Joseph translated the plates. E.g., https://read.cesletter.org/bom-translation/ 

2. SITH teaches that Joseph didn’t even use the plates. People recognize that if Joseph didn’t use the plates, but instead kept them covered by a cloth or even in another location, the entire narrative of ancient people carefully writing and protecting the plates is pointless. It doesn’t make sense. And if Joseph didn’t use the plates, what relevance is the testimony of the witnesses of the plates?

3. If all the words came from the stone, someone had to put them there. This means that, assuming the words were related somehow to the plates, the mysterious incognito supernatural translator (MIST) knew both the Nephite language and the English language. This raises at least three questions.

3.a.  Why did the MIST make errors that Joseph read to his scribes, including variant spellings?

3.b.  Why did the MIST make both substantive and grammatical errors that Joseph later corrected for future editions as he learned better grammar?

3.c. Why did the MIST borrow phrasing and concepts from The Late War, View of the Hebrews, and such Christian writers as Jonathan Edwards and James Hervey which were readily available in Palmyra?

4. If the text of the Book of Mormon came from SITH instead of an actual translation of the plates, there is no connection between antiquity and the text. Because there is also no way to know the identity of the MIST, unbelievers can attribute the text to sources other than the divine. 

What if, instead of SITH, Joseph Smith actually translated the plates?

Lately, LDS scholars won’t even entertain the possibility. But the rest of us can, and should.

If Joseph and Oliver told the truth (i.e., that Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates), they directly refuted each of the objections listed above. For discussion sake, we will refer to Joseph as translator with the acronym JT.

1. JT refutes the claim that Church leaders were misleading people when they taught that Joseph translated the plates. E.g., JT refutes the arguments in https://read.cesletter.org/bom-translation/ 

2. JT teaches that Joseph used the plates; he couldn’t have produced the text without the plates. Thus, the entire narrative of ancient people carefully writing and protecting the plates not only makes sense, but it was essential. This makes the testimony of the witnesses of the plates not only relevant, but determinative and conclusive.

3. JT requires Joseph to know both the Nephite language and the English language. He explained that before he dictated any translation, he learned the meaning of the characters, and he obviously knew English. This solves the following three SITH-related questions.

3.a.  Joseph dictated his translation to his scribes, who wrote variant spellings. Although some claimed Joseph corrected spelling, we can see in the original manuscript that, if he did correct some spelling, he didn’t correct a lot of it. But he wasn’t reading an English text in the first place.

3.b.  As any translator would, Joseph made both substantive and grammatical errors that he later corrected for future editions. Translators always have the prerogative to modify their translations.

3.c. Translators necessarily draw upon their own syntax or mental language bank. Joseph could not do otherwise; hence, we would expect phrasing and concepts from The Late War, View of the Hebrews, and such Christian writers as Jonathan Edwards and James Hervey which were readily available in Palmyra. The presence of these influences in the text corroborates Joseph’s claim that he translated the engravings “after the manner of his language.”

4. Because the text of the Book of Mormon is an actual translation of the plates, there is a direct connection between antiquity and the text. Because the plates could have come from no source other than the divine, readers necessarily attribute the text to no sources other than the divine.

_____

Let’s review why this issue is important for some people but not for others.

1. I’ve been told that it doesn’t matter where the text of the Book of Mormon originated because it’s true either way. I respect that view. If that’s your view, great. Read no further. 

That’s the same view that people in all religions take regarding their sacred books. 

To the extent truth is subjective, fine. Everyone thinks their own beliefs are correct or they’d change them. That’s axiomatic. While the persuasive power of spiritual confirmation is undeniable, it is also transitory. People convert into and out of various religions, and people of all ages in all religions range from apathetic to dogmatic. 

But the Book of Mormon was written to the convincing of people. That means something more than a subjective preference based on where people grew up and in what culture.

2. I’ve also been told that the evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon comes from the millions of people who have accepted it. An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy in the first place, but in this case the argument contradicts the premise because far more people have rejected the Book of Mormon than have accepted it.

3. The Book of Mormon has always been different from any other book because, as a translation of a previously unknown ancient record, it could have materialized only through divine intervention. That origin is convincing for those who accept the narrative because it is factual, rational, and supported by extrinsic evidence.

But SITH teaches that it wasn’t really a translation and the ancient record narrative was superfluous. SITH accommodates (but does not require) the claim that the text originated with the divine somehow, but not the way Joseph and Oliver said it did.

SITH not only undermines the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver, but it directly attacks the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as well as its historicity.

That’s why this issue is important.

_____ 

The SITH-sayers. The contrast between SITH and JT is so stark and obvious, we wonder how any believing scholars could be persuaded to embrace SITH. After all, this debate has been ongoing since the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, which ridiculed SITH and pointed out both its absurdity and the futility of the witnesses if Joseph didn’t even use the plates. Oliver and Joseph responded to that book by reaffirming that Joseph translated the plates and demonstrating that the text relates actual history that took place in the real world, using the New York Cumorah as a pin in the map. 

Nevertheless, several witnesses claimed they observed Joseph put a stone in a hat, cover his face with the hat, and dictate words. These include primarily Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris.

Time and space constraints preclude assessing all the statements, but for those interested I’ve done that in the book A Man that Can Translate. 

Basically, I concluded that these witnesses sought to refute the Spalding theory, which required them to testify that Joseph had no manuscript to read from. That becomes obvious when their statements are read in context instead of the brief excerpts that everyone quotes. 

Instead of the actual translation, they each observed a demonstration Joseph conducted with SITH in the Whitmer home. As Gurley explained, Joseph used the stone to satisfy the curiosity of his followers but did not use it to actually produce the Book of Mormon. Joseph had been commanded not to show the U&T or plates to anyone, so he couldn’t conduct the translation in the open.

A key to understanding the SITH-sayers is differentiating between what the witnesses actually observed vs. what they inferred or assumed. This is a basic principle in assessing witness testimony that lawyers are familiar with but many other people are not. Because translation is a mental process, no one can witness someone translating; a witness can observe someone dictating words, but a witness cannot know the source of the words. For that, we have to rely on the person dictating. In this case, Joseph always said he translated the plates with the U&T. Whatever he did with SITH, it was not translating.

As for how Joseph used the U&T, I’ll discuss that in an upcoming post.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Nationalism, M2C, critics, and other topics

Last week I did an interview on various topics on the youtube channel Mormon Book Reviews (MBR).

 You can see the interview here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3OfJENWFc&t=2s

Steve Pynakker, the host, is a remarkable interviewer who is well-informed on the issues, eager to understand what people think and why they think it, and happy to let people explain themselves in the spirit of creating unity from diversity. 

He is building bridges of understanding and empathy among:

(i) various Restoration groups/movements

(ii) traditional Christians and Restoration groups

(iii) LDS with different opinions/perspectives

(iv) believers and critics. 

He’s demonstrating that we don’t all need to think and believe alike to understand and empathize with one another. Instead, we can enjoy the diversity while we find common ground and unity of purpose as we aspire for and work toward a better world.

MBR is a refreshing, much-needed venue that everyone should be familiar with.

It is a stark contrast to the LDS apologists who consider themselves “Interpreters” for the rest of us.*

During this interview, we discussed these topics, among others:

– How M2Cers use charges of nationalism to deflect from their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah

– The utility of a Cumorah-centric analysis of Book of Mormon setting (culture, geography, etc.)

– The 1990 Watson letter about Cumorah

– The role of assumptions in filtering evidence 

– How critics are making a living by blaming the Church for human problems that are found throughout the world and throughout history

– The FAITH model of belief (mechanics of confirmation bias)

– The ultimate goal of establishing Zion

In a wide-ranging interview, we can’t cover all the topics in depth. For those interested, I’ve written/spoken about these topics in depth elsewhere, and will continue to do so. 

As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m fine with people believing whatever they want. Ideally, people make informed decisions so they are not threatened by what others think. But that requires a little effort and some mind expansion, as well as empathy, mutual respect, and understanding.

Some of the comments on youtube reflect the basic psychology that people feel threatened by alternative perspectives. MBR is all about dialog, not debate. No one is trying to convince or convert anyone else. 

Many people are unwilling (or unable) to see things from different perspectives, but for those who are, MBR is awesome.

_____

* Many LDS and Christian apologists have produced some tremendously effective arguments and evidence (even when they don’t all concur). For example, I think Jonathan Edwards was amazing. C.S. Lewis, awesome. Neal Maxwell, great.

In recent decades, though, certain LDS apologists (the Interpreters) have labored under a siege mentality as they have sought to defend the faith with narrow, twisty logic, manipulated “correspondences,” and arrogant delusions of superiority. That mentality has led them to attack not only critics of the Church, but faithful alternatives to their own theories such as M2C and SITH.

MBR is what FAIRLDS, the Interpreter Foundation, and Book of Mormon Central would be if they were legitimate academic endeavors, or legitimate defenders of the faith, or even just followed the Church’s policies of neutrality on these issues. 

Instead, these organizations are facades for the M2C citation cartel that seeks to convince the Latter-day Saints that the prophets, starting with Joseph and Oliver, were wrong about fundamental truth claims.

And I’m fine with them presenting their ideas. 

I actually agree with much of what they teach on several topics, but whether or not I agree doesn’t matter. The First Amendment freedom of speech should apply to everyone in the world. We need more speech, not less speech. Cancel culture is intellectual cowardice, both in society at large and within the Restoration.

I think the LDS intellectuals who spend millions of dollars promoting their own views while excluding alternative faithful views are doing a disservice not only to the Latter-day Saints but to everyone in the world who might be interested in learning more about the Restoration.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Thought Experiment #1: what if LDS scholars believed the prophets

Thought experiments are useful for lots of reasons, but in some cases, an imagined scenario can assume a life of its own. We could think of a thought experiment as representing a parallel universe where different decisions lead to different outcomes (realities).

I’m going to pose a series of thought experiments in the nature of alternative history.

This graphic of life paths is similar to the possible paths of Church history. At every decision point, a different choice would have led to a different outcome.

Thought experiments are speculative, but they can also inform and guide future decisions. 

Another way to think of this is in terms of course corrections. An error in the past can be somewhat corrected by changing course now. 

Let’s consider the possibilities.

_____

Thought Experiment #1 is, what if LDS scholars believed the teachings of the prophets?

There are a lot of places we could start. Maybe we’ll consider some of these in future thought experiments. Think how different the present would be if any of the following had happened. Maybe in a parallel universe these things have happened and we, in this universe, just don’t know about it.

– 1823: What if we found a contemporaneous letter or journal entry that confirmed Lucy Mack Smith’s report that when he first appeared to Joseph Smith, Moroni told Joseph the plates were deposited in the “hill of Cumorah,” making this the first time Joseph ever heard the term? No doubt our M2C scholars would rationalize it away somehow, but how would such a document have changed history?

– 1827: What if others in addition to Lucy reported that Joseph was referring to the hill as Cumorah months before he got the plates?

– 1829: What if Oliver and Joseph had also left records to corroborate David Whitmer’s account of meeting the messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah?

– 1835: What if the original First Presidency had declared that it was a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the hill in New York where the plates were deposited? Well, that isn’t a hypothetical, because the Assistant President of the Church did declare that and all the other members concurred. But what if LDS scholars today accepted that?

– 1842: What if Orson Pratt had accepted Joseph’s gentle but firm rebuke in the Wentworth letter of Pratt’s hemispheric theory?

– 1899: What if President Joseph F. Smith, as editor of the Improvement Era, republished Letter VII to counter anti-Mormon claims that Cumorah could not be in New York? Well, that’s not a hypothetical; that actually happened. What if LDS scholars accepted Letter VII in 1899? 

– 1921: What if, when he eliminated Orson Pratt’s speculative footnotes from the official edition of the Book of Mormon, James E. Talmage had retained the factual footnotes, including the location of Cumorah in Manchester, New York?

– 1935: What if LDS scholars had heeded Joseph Fielding Smith’s warning that rejecting the New York Cumorah in favor of M2C would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon?  

– 1975: What if LDS scholars had accepted President Marion G. Romney’s General Conference address on the New York Cumorah?

Those would each be interesting, but let’s start with 1990 and the Cumorah letter from the Office of the First Presidency because this was recently in the news on social media.

Background: In 1990, the Office of the First Presidency responded to an inquiry from a Church member “about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.” The letter explained: “The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.” 

It’s a simple, factual statement supported by plenty of historical documentation that shouldn’t have been controversial at all. But because the facts contradict the M2C theory promoted by LDS apologists at FARMS (now the Interpreter, FAIRLDS, and Book of Mormon Central), the apologists tried to undermine and discredit the letter. 

A recent podcast by Mormonism Live with RFM titled “Mormon Apologist Skullduggery – The Mystery of the Second Watson Letter” discussed the issue at length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tYNWFkO6o

Here’s the thought experiment.

Thought Experiment #1 is, what if LDS scholars believed the teachings of the prophets as summarized in the 1990 letter?

Here’s one possibility.

John Sorenson, who had published his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in 1984, might have said to himself, “Well, maybe I’m wrong about the Mayan thing, after all.” 

His followers, starting with Jack Welch and Kirk Magleby, might have said, “You know, there are a lot of logical and factual fallacies in that book. We were fine with them because they served a purpose, but if the prophets were right about Cumorah, maybe we should reconsider.”

Dan Peterson and William Hamblin might have said, “The New York Cumorah is the only logical setting, just as we’ve said all along. Our critics are idiots.”

FARMS (and eventually Book of Mormon Central) would have changed their logo to reflect the actual language of the Book of Mormon, replacing the Mayan glyph with the letter A to represent English.

Instead of spending decades seeking for evidence in Mesoamerican to prove the prophets were wrong, LDS scholars would have sought evidence to support the teachings of the prophets. 

And they would have found it, in abundance, right in North America.

LDS scholars would have interpreted the text to corroborate, not repudiate, the New York Cumorah. They would have recognized that the text does not say or imply there were millions of Jaredites killed at Cumorah, or hundreds of thousands of Nephites/Lamanites. 

They would have noticed that the text does not refer to volcanoes or an isthmus, but instead describes the types of earthquakes and river systems typical of the Mississippi River systems, including the Ohio and Illinois rivers. 

They would have accepted what Moroni told Joseph; i.e., that the record was written and deposited not far from Joseph’s home near Palmyra. They would see that the text describes pre-Columbian North America quite well.

The same scholars would embrace authentic Church history instead of revising it to de-correlate Cumorah. They would have upheld Joseph and Oliver as truthful, reliable and credible instead of framing them as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah.

Latter-day Saints and other believers in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be united in their understanding of the text as an actual history of real people. 

The claims of critics would be defused. Instead of demonstrating the sharp disconnect between the prophets and the scholars, they would have been faced with unity. Instead of claiming no evidence for the Book of Mormon, they would have been faced with an abundance of evidence. 

But this is not our universe.

Not right now, anyway.

But it could be.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Rejecting the witnesses

The material for my upcoming book on LDS apologists keeps accumulating. The other day, one of my favorites, Dan the Interpreter, added some more when he recommended four specific books.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/01/my-list-of-four-basic-books-to-strengthen-faith.html

They’re all great books in many respects, especially if you believe/teach M2C and SITH. But only one of them is completely faithful to the witnesses. 

That fits with the approach taken by Dan and the rest of the M2C citation cartel (along with the SITH-sayers). They want people to accept the witnesses as reliable and credible–except for what they said about Cumorah. 

When it comes to Cumorah, our M2C scholars, such as Dan, want people to think the witnesses were ignorant speculators who misled the Church until they, the scholars, came along to straighten things out.

It’s a patently self-serving, arrogant position for these scholars to presume they know more than Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors. But what can we expect from a group of intellectuals who publish under the The Interpreter rubric?

There is no word in the English language that more perfectly describes academic arrogance than interpreter. 

Yet, despite their assertion of superiority over the rest of us, the M2C scholars apply inconsistent, outcome-oriented rationales to manipulate and obfuscate the evidence because they know, like everyone else, that the actual historical evidence contradicts their M2C theory.

Sentient students spot the problems with M2C once they learn about the Cumorah references in Church history. That’s why our M2C scholars work so hard to revise Church history by censoring the Cumorah references.

_____

After quoting Farrar (“Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish,” etc.), Dan describes the M2C citation cartel:

Farrer’s words long served as a kind of unofficial motto for several of those who were associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), which later became the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and then, well, transferred the baton to FAIR, Book of Mormon Central, and the Interpreter Foundation.  I think that motto was entirely appropriate.

“Transferred the baton” is Dan’s euphemism for when the Maxwell Institute rejected Dan’s belligerent form of apologetics and became a legitimate scholarly institute. That’s when Dan took his followers to the Interpreter Foundation.

The FARMS logo, which explicitly teaches M2C as the only acceptable (and de facto official) position on Book of Mormon geography, accompanied FARMS to the Maxwell Institute for a while. 

The Maxwell Institute, which wisely jettisoned M2C in favor of the Church’s position of neutrality regarding Book of Mormon geography, also jettisoned the M2C logo.

Now Book of Mormon Central features the logo. They spend millions of dollars annually to promote M2C, plastering their logo on everything they can. 

And, amazingly, FARMS is still publishing, as I mentioned in my paper on the agenda-driven content in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

_____

I’ve discussed these four books before, but let’s take a quick look.

1. Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. This excellent book argues strongly in favor of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. In an important chapter, Brother Anderson also specifically addresses “The Case Against the Witnesses,” showing the logical and factual fallacies that critics depend upon.

Dan and the rest of the M2C citation cartel ought to re-read this book. 

For one thing, Brother Anderson demonstrates the consistency and credibility of Oliver Cowdery. In our day, the harshest critics of Oliver Cowdery are Dan and the rest of the M2C-sayers. They teach their students, readers and followers, that Oliver misled the Church about the New York Cumorah when, as Assistant President of the Church, he declared it is a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the Hill Cumorah in western New York (Letter VII). http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

On page 30, Brother Anderson relates the account of the messenger taking the plates from Harmony to the Hill Cumorah. He notes that Joseph Smith “said that it was one of the Nephites, and that he had the plates.” David described the messenger in some detail and said that the messenger who shoed the plates to his mother Mary was “the same old man (judging by her description of him).” 

Because of M2C, Dan and his followers insist David Whitmer was wrong about this because the real Cumorah is in southern Mexico, so the messenger would have no reason to go to any Cumorah in New York. (Below we’ll see how Jack Welch changed this history as well in his Opening the Heavens book.)

Those of us who actually believe the witnesses have another explanation. 

Joseph had finished with the abridged plates in Harmony. The Lord told him not to retranslate the Book of Lehi, but to translate the plates of Nephi instead (D&C 10), the “other records” the Lord had promised Oliver he would assist to translate (D&C 9:2). We can tell the plates of Nephi were not included in the set of abridged plates because they aren’t listed in the Title Page, so how was Joseph going to get these original records? 

Before leaving Harmony, Joseph gave the abridged plates to the messenger who returned them to the repository in Cumorah, from whence he picked up the plates of Nephi and took them to Fayette. That’s why Joseph translated the plates of Nephi in Fayette.

It’s all very simple and clear. It explains lots of open questions in Church history. But it also is a problem for our M2C-sayers because they have tried for years to persuade the Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the prophets about Cumorah.

But that’s not all. Dan and his followers insist this messenger was Moroni, despite the obvious disparity between David’s description and the description we have of Moroni elsewhere (taller than average, etc.) David is the only one who left a record of having a conversation with both this messenger and Moroni, and he knew the difference between them.

On page 31, Anderson quotes Mary’s grandson John C. Whitmer who said “I have heard my grandmother say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by an holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi.” Brigham Young explained that Joseph interacted with both Moroni and Nephi, and here we have a clear example of that. 

Dan and his followers have made a big deal about the messenger being Moroni instead of Nephi, but the historical record, along with common sense, tells us that Moroni, as a resurrected being, would not be a shape-shifting, short, old man in some settings and someone quite different in other settings.

While I agree with Dan that this is an excellent book, I think it’s more important to accept what the witnesses actually taught than to reject what they said because it contradicts a particular theory of geography (in this case M2C).

2. Opening the Heavens.

Portions of this book are available online here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/chp-welch-opening-2-sec2.pdf

This is an excellent reference book that would be even better if it didn’t manipulate the historical record to accommodate M2C and SITH. 

The section on the translation is very helpful, but it omits some key references. This excerpt on pages 79-80 has the same problem as the Joseph Smith Papers. 

While the embedding had occurred centuries earlier, the unfolding process commenced in September 1823, when Joseph Smith Jr. was visited several times by the angel Moroni, who informed him that God “had a work for [him] to do” (JS–H 1:33). The angel went on to state that a book written upon gold plates containing the fullness of the gospel was deposited in a stone box in a nearby hill, and that in due time he, Joseph Smith, would be given stewardship over that book.

The “nearby hill” phrase is a concoction that obfuscates the historical record which refers to the hill as Cumorah. I discussed that in my analysis of Volume 5 of the JSP referenced above. Lucy Mack Smith and Parley P. Pratt both separately explained that it was Moroni who identified the hill as Cumorah. Lucy explains that Joseph later referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. Readers of Opening the Heavens learn none of that.

On page 134, the book provides an excerpt from Oliver’s Letter IV.

19. Joseph Smith, as recorded by Oliver Cowdery (1835) 

[The messenger] said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.19

This puts Mormon and Moroni in western New York when they abridged the Nephite plates. Again, this is simple, clear, and fits with the rest of the narratives, both in terms of Church history and the text of the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately, this excerpt omits the preceding sentences from Letter IV, including this one: “He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham.” 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68 

Readers should know what Joseph had been instructed by Moroni because it goes to the question of how Joseph translated the text; i.e., it is evident from the terms Joseph used that he was not thinking about (or seeing in the plates) references to massive stone pyramids, jaguars, jungles and jade. Instead, he saw what Moroni told him to expect and translated the engravings accordingly.

To be sure, the book does not omit every historical reference to Cumorah. Page 31 goes on to explain that “After appending his abridgement of the Jaredite records, a few ecclesiastical documents, and his own farewell, Moroni finally deposited the plates in the Hill Cumorah in modern-day western New York.“ But without giving citations for this claim or referring to it elsewhere in the book, readers could infer that (i) there is no support in the historical record for the New York Cumorah and (ii) this reference fits within the M2C teaching that the New York hill was called Cumorah because of a false tradition, while the “real” Cumorah is in southern Mexico.

The sole historical reference to Cumorah in Opening the Heavens is on page 140: 

34. Joseph Smith, as recorded by Joseph Curtis (1881) 

[Joseph Smith] saw an angel with a view of the hill Cumorah & the plates of gold had certain instructions got the plates & by the assistance of the Urim & Thumin translated them by the gift & power of God.34

That’s a solid reference that corroborates all the other accounts related to Cumorah and the translation with the Urim and Thummim, but because Opening the Heavens omits the other Cumorah references, readers cannot put this one in context.

Otherwise, though, the book is devoid of references to Cumorah (apart from a citation to an article in the Saints Herald titled “The Hill Cumorah, and the Book of Mormon.”) 

BTW, that article is interesting because the author describes his visit to Palmyra to see/experience “the place of the last great decisive conflict between the Nephites and Lamanites… [who] pitched their tents around the hill Cumorah.” He explains how the description given by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery “was almost perfect.” He wrote, “Whatever may be thought of the truth or falsity of the narrative by men, it is certain that the face of the country sustains the record in a wonderful manner.” 

http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100195.pdf 

Opening the Heavens quotes or cites Lucy Mack Smith 47 times but omits her important references to Cumorah. It refers to Letter VII once in the notes, but omits the Cumorah reference from the narrative.

On page 86, we read this typically generic reference to “the hill.” 

Joseph (leaving Emma with Joseph Knight’s carriage) then went after midnight to the site on the hill, which was two to three miles southeast of the Smith home, and received the plates from Moroni.8 [emphasis added]

Note 8 lists Letter VII among the citations and even cites the page numbers where Oliver explained it was a fact that this hill is the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. But why bury the reference instead of being historically accurate in the narrative by referring to the hill as Cumorah?

Another problem with the book I’ve discussed previously here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html

3. Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith

This is another useful reference book that, unfortunately, manipulates the evidence. It omits Lucy’s recitation of what Moroni told Joseph the first night they met (although it does include her recollection that he referred to the “hill of Cumorah” in early 1827 when he returned late from Manchester).

The book provides an editorial introduction to David Whitmer’s account of taking Joseph and Oliver to Fayette, but it labels the messenger as “Moroni.”

Excerpt: “he also tells of going to Pennsylvania and of Joseph’s seeric recital of his journey; he also saw Moroni ‘going to Cumorah’; Moroni later appeared to Whitmer’s mother. 

The gratuitous use of scare quotes around “going to Cumorah” isn’t too bad; at least the book mentions that important statement. But anyone can read what David said and see that he never said, implied, or even suggested that the messenger was Moroni. Later in this interview he specifically referred to the Three Nephites. 

In a separate interview inexplicably omitted from this book, David explained that Joseph “said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed portions of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.“

[You can read that interview here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/trip-to-fayette-references.html]

Obviously, Joseph’s explanation makes sense. We would expect these 3 Nephites to assist the production of the Book of Mormon in any way they could. We don’t need a shape-shifting resurrected being who contradicts basic teachings about resurrected bodies.

What doesn’t make sense is the way our M2C scholars manipulate the evidence to accommodate M2C, when the evidence of the New York Cumorah is so obvious. Well, it makes sense because they need to change the history to fit their theories, but it doesn’t make sense in terms of historical accuracy.

The book also includes the accounts from Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young about the repository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah that Joseph and others visited. Now that Cumorah has been de-correlated, students don’t find this information about Cumorah in current seminary/Institute materials the way we used to, so it’s nice to see it here, even though the book omits David Whitmer’s account about Oliver’s visit to the repository along with several other accounts. 

4. Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide

Grant Hardy’s work is insightful and helpful, but would be much improved if he stuck with the historical evidence instead of assuming a Mesoamerican setting.

E.g., “The danger of starting with nineteenth-century controversies [or with Joseph Smith’s unmet adolescent needs, or with the religious debates of the Burned-over District, or with Mesoamerican archeology, or, closer to home, with manifestations of the truth of the Church or evidences of Joseph Smith’s prophetic status] and then mining the narrative for relevant verses is that such a procedure may distort and misrepresent what the book actually says; it ignores the underlying logic of the text.” (184).

Even though M2C is not a focus of his book, he simply takes it for granted here and in his other books. Consequently, his fellow M2Cers are comfortable sharing his work.

_____

I’m happy to read and consider all points of view about the Book of Mormon. 

If our M2C scholars did likewise, their work would be more credible and useful. As it is, everyone can see how they manipulate the evidence to fit their geography theories, which not only undermines their credibility as scholars but undermines the faith of those they persuade to believe the prophets were wrong.

 

Source: About Central America