Author: Jonathan Neville

We saw in a previous post how certain LDS intellectuals apply logical and factual fallacies to reject Lucy Mack Smith’s account regarding the hill Cumorah.

Today we’ll look at similar fallacies regarding Oliver Cowdery’s account.

_____

Just as certain LDS intellectuals reject Lucy Mack Smith’s account whenever it contradicts their theories about Book of Mormon Geography, they have made a similar argument to justify their repudiation of Letter VII; i.e., because Oliver did not relate the First Vision in his essays on Church history, therefore we should not believe what he did write about Moroni’s visit and the hill Cumorah.

M2C proponents reject what Oliver wrote not because Oliver was not credible, not because Oliver did not have personal knowledge of the location of the depository, and not because Oliver was not an Apostle and Prophet and a member of the First Presidency. 

They reject what he wrote solely because their own interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon requires them to put Cumorah in Mexico. As ridiculous as that looks on the surface, it’s even worse when LDS historians manipulate the historical record to censor, omit, or otherwise downplay the historical record about Cumorah.

Any historian who does this to promote (or even to accommodate) M2C, without expressly explaining that bias to readers, is committing historian malpractice.

_____

As Oliver explained from the outset, he relied on Joseph Smith to give him details of what transpired before he, Oliver, met Joseph. Oliver explained that Joseph agreed to assist with the narrative. 

we have thought that a full history of the rise of the church of the Latter Day Saints, and the most interesting parts of its progress, to the present time, would be worthy the perusal of the Saints….

That our narrative may be correct, and particularly the introduction, it is proper to inform our patrons, that our brother J. Smith Jr. has offered to assist us. Indeed, there are many items connected with the fore part of this subject that render his labor indispensible. With his labor and with authentic documents now in our possession, we hope to render this a pleasing and agreeable narrative, well worth the examination and perusal of the Saints.—

To do <​Justice to​> this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readears, [sic] assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

We don’t know what “authentic documents” Oliver had, but they may have included Joseph’s 1832 history and Oliver’s own notebook that he had when he met Joseph in Harmony in which he recorded what Joseph told him. That notebook has never been found, but we can infer that Oliver relied on it, or his memory of what Joseph told him, in addition to his interaction with Joseph in 1834/5.

Throughout these essays, Oliver was candid about what he knew and what he didn’t know, what was fact and what was estimated. He assured readers the narrative was “founded upon facts.” 

For example, Oliver asked Joseph for details about Moroni’s first visit. The family had retired for the night and Oliver wondered when, exactly, Moroni appeared.

In this situation hours passed unnumbered—how many or how few I know not, neither is he able to inform me; but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later, as the noise and bustle of the family, in retiring, had long since ceased.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/66

This example explicitly explains Joseph’s direct involvement, but, as Oliver explained at the outset, everything he wrote about Joseph’s experiences prior to Oliver meeting him had to come from Joseph. 

_____

Historians who reject Oliver’s account of Cumorah because he didn’t mention the First Vision are committing a logical fallacy.

Given Joseph’s participation in the preparation of these essays, Oliver’s failure to mention the First Vision cannot be attributed to error on his part. The omission was either because Joseph hadn’t described it or because Joseph didn’t want Oliver to write about it. There are several possible explanations for this,* but none of them involve Oliver inventing fake history.

When President Cowdery (he was Assistant President of the Church at the time) wrote the essay that was published as Letter VII, he declared it was a fact that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill in New York from which Joseph obtained the plates, which was named Cumorah anciently. 

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

He also said the repository of Nephite records was in that hill, a fact he knew from personal experience, as we learn from David Whitmer and Brigham Young, who both said Oliver told them about visiting the repository.

Oliver expressly distinguished between fact and speculation, such as here:

How far below the surface these records were placed by Moroni, I am unable to say; but from the fact they had been some fourteen hundred years buried, and that too on the side of a hill so steep, one is ready to conclude that they were some feet below, as the earth would naturally wear more or less in that length of time. But they being placed toward the top of the hill, the ground would not remove as much as at two-thirds, perhaps.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/94

As we saw at the outset, there are some LDS historians who reject Oliver’s account about Cumorah, not based on any historical analysis of what he wrote about Cumorah, but solely because Oliver’s explanation contradicts M2C.

This is pure apologetics to defend their M2C theory, not historical analysis. It’s not even textual interpretation or evaluation of the extrinsic evidence, both of which support what Oliver wrote.

_____

* The debate about the First Vision revolves around the differences in the various accounts. Only the brief 1832 account predated Oliver’s historical essays, and we don’t know whether Oliver even had access to that one because it was never published. 

Some say that Joseph gave different versions of the experience to suit different audiences or for different purposes. Others say the different versions suggest it was a constructed memory that changed over time. Another possibility is that Joseph, having been criticized for telling the Methodist minister about his experience (JS-H 1:21, although we don’t know what he actually told him), may have concluded it was wise to avoid mentioning the topic publicly. Perhaps he felt, or had been warned, that relating the experience in detail would be dangerous until the Church was well established. 

Regardless of the reason, based on the available evidence, the best explanation why Oliver didn’t mention the First Vision in these essays is because Joseph didn’t want him to. The best explanation for why Lucy Mack Smith didn’t mention it in her recollection is because Joseph hadn’t told her about it.

At any rate, the omission of the First Vision from Oliver’s essays and Lucy Mack Smith’s history have no relevance to the credibility of their accounts regarding Cumorah.

First Vision accounts.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

Source: Letter VII

The youtube channel Mormon Book Reviews has released a review of Infinite Goodness that everyone should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAfovfEu9A

In the early days of the Church, Mormon missionaries sought to distinguish the Restoration from the rest of Christianity, from “Hindoos,” from Islam, etc. 

Question 20th. What are the fundamental principles of your religion.

Answer. The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/12 

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

A few years ago I wrote a short book titled Mesomania. I discussed how the obsession with Mesoamerica has shaped the worldview of LDS intellectuals, including Church historians. Recently we’ve seen how Mesomania has led even the Joseph Smith Papers to manipulate the historical record to accommodate modern theories of geography.

Part 1 of this blog series discussed the Ensign article “Understanding Church History by Study and Faith” by Keith A. Erekson, Church History Library Director: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/02/understanding-church-history-by-study-and-faith?lang=eng

We discussed how so-called problems in Church history arise from bad assumptions made in the present, such as the M2C assumption that Cumorah cannot be in New York. There is nothing–zero–in the historical record that even suggests a problem with or a question about the New York Cumorah. 

Instead, the entire historical record supports the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. It is unprofessional and unconscionable for LDS historians to manipulate the historical record by censoring Cumorah–especially when their only justification is to accommodate the M2C geography theory promoted by their colleagues. 

In today’s Part 2, we’ll consider another excerpt from the article:

Today, we can learn about the past only indirectly through the pieces that remain. Information is always lost between the past and the present. We must study the records that do survive while remembering that they do not represent the entirety of the past.

One of the records that does survive is Lucy Mack Smith’s history, which I discussed here:

http://www.lettervii.com/2022/01/lucy-mack-smith-was-solid-except.html

Faced with the historical accounts, such as Lucy Mack Smith relating that Moroni identified the hill by name the first night he met Joseph Smith, our M2C scholars respond by saying Lucy had a poor memory or was influenced by a false tradition (although they accept everything she wrote about other events). 

Our M2C scholars and the Church historians who accommodate them claim that Joseph Smith never taught that Cumorah was in New York. But Lucy explained that she specifically related things which Joseph never wrote or published.

From the article:

Consider one example: When Joseph Smith preached a sermon to the Saints, he typically had no prepared text, and no audio or video recording was made. Though a few in attendance may have written notes or reflections, even fewer of those notes survive. Thus, we cannot claim to know everything Joseph Smith ever said, though we can, for instance, quote Wilford Woodruff’s notes about Joseph’s sermon.

Perhaps the best example of this is the statement attributed to Joseph Smith in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon in the current LDS edition.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

That’s a manufactured quotation, adapted from Wilford Woodruff’s summary of what Joseph Smith taught on a particular occasion. While it’s bizarre to see Woodruff’s third-person observation converted into a direct first-person quotation, we accept it because we assume it’s “close enough” to what Joseph taught, even though Woodruff did not put it in quotation marks as he often did when recording a direct quotation.

And yet, when we have Lucy’s direct quotation of what Joseph said, our historians say she must have been wrong because our scholars insist that Cumorah cannot be in New York.

One historian estimates that Joseph gave around 200 sermons for which we have no record, notes, or journal entries. We can’t know what Joseph taught in those sermons, but what we do know is that those closest to him who left records, including his mother, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery, all referred to the New York Cumorah as a matter of fact.

Actually, all of Joseph’s contemporaries taught that Cumorah was in New York. It was common knowledge, published in all the Church newspapers during Joseph’s lifetime, and copied directly into his own history.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

By any standard of historical analysis, historians know there is no justification for manipulating the historical record to censor the New York Cumorah.

Yet our top LDS historians do it anyway.

In an upcoming video, we’ll look at how Keith A. Erekson contradicts his own article when it comes to Cumorah. 

In Part 3, we’ll continue our review of this article.

“Free education is abundant, all over the internet. It’s the desire to learn that’s scarce.”

Source: About Central America

Lucy Mack Smith

Those Latter-day Saints who are familiar with Lucy Mack Smith universally admire her determination and faithfulness. She suffered tremendous losses and hardships. By the time she dictated her history in the fall of 1844, her husband and her sons Alvin, Hyrum, Joseph, Samuel and Don Carlos had all died, but her son William and daughters Sophronia, Katherine and Lucy were still living.

She deserves our respect.

Yet many LDS intellectuals are schizophrenic about Lucy Mack Smith. They think her history is credible and reliable about everything* except (i) Cumorah and (ii) the First Vision, which she didn’t mention.

For example, in the Joseph Smith Papers, Translations and Revelations, Vol. 5, Original Manuscript, the Introduction cites or refers to Lucy 36 times.** But the editors carefully avoid what she said about Cumorah.

The Saints book, Volume 1, follows the same approach, citing Lucy’s history dozens of times but omitting what she said about Cumorah.

And yet, there is nothing inherently suspect about Lucy’s recollections regarding Cumorah. 

Lucy dictated her history in 1844-5. An 1845 second draft includes clarifications and insertions by others. 

Lucy explained that she dictated her history because she had recounted it so many times she was weary. 

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—

_____

When she related what Joseph said about Moroni’s visit, she recalled that Moroni told Joseph “the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place.” 

When Joseph was late returning home from Manchester in early 1827, he explained to his parents that he had encountered the angel as he “passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are.” 

The intellectuals who reject (and censor) these accounts offer two justifications for their choice, both patently outcome-driven rationales designed to accommodate the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

– Some say Lucy’s reference to Cumorah must be attributed to her erroneous adoption of a supposedly false tradition about Cumorah started by unknown early persons at an unknown time. 

– Others say Lucy wasn’t credible because she didn’t describe the First Vision in her original dictated account (the 1844/5 version).

Obviously, these two objections contradict one another.

While it’s true that Lucy didn’t mention the First Vision in her history, that is consistent with the actual history; i.e., Joseph didn’t say he told anyone other than the Methodist minister about his vision (JS-H 1:21), and we don’t know what he actually told the minister anyway.

Given that Joseph never told his mother contemporaneously about the First Vision, why would anyone fault Lucy for not relating a memory of something that didn’t happen? [I.e., she didn’t relate a false account that Joseph told tell her about the First Vision, which is not the same as saying the First Vision didn’t happen.]

In Lucy’s 1845 draft, someone inserted Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of the First Vision, but Lucy did not say Joseph told her about it when it happened.

IOW, Lucy’s omission of the First Vision in her dictated history is evidence that her memory was intact and accurately related, even when people expected her to relate something about the First Vision.

Yet the M2C scholars and the historians who accommodate their theories want us to believe that 

(i) because Lucy didn’t relate a false retrospective memory of the First Vision, 

(ii) she did relate a false retrospective memory of what Joseph said about the hill Cumorah. 

If not for their obsession with accommodating M2C, no historian would propose such an analysis. 

This is the type of irrational thinking and deceptive presentation that occurs when people become apologists for a theory instead of unbiased historians seeking to relate accurate history.

A far better, more scholarly and honest approach would be to accurately report the entire historical record, without seeking to accommodate modern theories about Book of Mormon geography. 

_____

*The Historical Introduction in the Joseph Smith Papers explains: “Though there are errors in the dating of some events and occasionally in place and individual names, overall her account is of inestimable value, providing a rarely heard woman’s voice as it traces JS’s life from beginning to end. She was present at many seminal events and offered insights no one else could provide.”

**Excerpts from the Introduction below. In addition, the Introduction cites Lucy’s history 23 times.

– Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recorded that her son acquired the plates in the early morning of 22 September 1827

– Lucy Mack Smith, who remembered seeing the spectacles before her son’s move to Harmony, gave a description of the instrument that is similar to Harris’s

– Lucy Mack Smith, who was still living in Manchester when the loss occurred, recalled in her 1845 history that her son returned to Harmony almost immediately after learning the manuscript had been lost: 

– Lucy Mack Smith did not learn that her son had received the plates again until she and her husband, Joseph Smith Sr., visited Harmony in early September 1828.   

– Lucy Mack Smith recorded that it was with delight that her son stated he had “commenced translating,” with Emma’s assistance. 

– Lucy Mack Smith recorded that when the angel returned the plates to Smith, he also promised “that the Lord would send [him) a scribe.”

– Given the antagonism of their neighbors, Lucy Mack Smith and her husband were reluctant to share their son’s experiences with their new acquaintance. 

– According to Lucy Mack Smith’s reminiscence, Cowdery eventually gained the trust of the Smiths.

– Cowdery told Lucy Mack Smith and her husband, “There is a work for me to do in this thing and I am determined if there is to attend to it.” 

– Lucy Mack Smith stated later that “evil designing people were seeking to take away Joseph’s life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth among the world.”

– When Lucy Mack Smith received word that the translation was complete, she, her husband, and Martin Harris traveled to the Whitmer home. 

Source: Letter VII

In Encanto, we don’t talk about Bruno.

https://youtu.be/bvWRMAU6V-c?t=157

When among M2C scholars, we don’t talk about Cumorah.

Source: Letter VII

In 2017, the Ensign published an article titled “Understanding Church History by Study and Faith” by Keith A. Erekson, Church History Library Director: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/02/understanding-church-history-by-study-and-faith?lang=eng

Excerpt:

Frequently, so-called problems with the past are actually just bad assumptions made in the present.

A good example of this is the treatment of the New York Cumorah. 

The historical record is clear and unambiguous regarding the New York Cumorah. 

However, the record contradicts the modern assumptions made by our M2C scholars, who insist Cumorah cannot be in New York but must be somewhere in Mesoamerica.

Therefore, these scholars, and the Church historians who accommodate the M2C theory, cast doubt on the historical sources. 

Worse, they censor them, as we’ve seen in the Saints books and the editorial content of the Joseph Smith Papers. 

_____

More tomorrow.

Source: About Central America

Many readers of this blog have noticed that whenever the topics of the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) or the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) arise in a conversation, the M2C/SITH-sayers resort to rote statements such as “the Book of Mormon doesn’t mention snow” or “Emma said Joseph used SITH.” 

These are programmed responses, the type of thing an NPC (non-player character) would say. We don’t blame or criticize NPCs; they are unable to think for themselves, by definition.

But it’s not merely M2C NPCs who speak this way.

Readers here are also puzzled at the way the M2C scholars and their followers deal with Cumorah. We would think they would welcome all faithful interpretations of the Book of Mormon and Church history.

And they would, if they were legitimate scholars. Legitimate scholars are eager to consider multiple working hypotheses based on known, relevant facts. They engage in respectful conversations and dialog. They invite various points of view to participate in their journals and conferences.

But that’s not the case with the M2C/SITH citation cartels. 

Book of Mormon Central, FAIRLDS, the Interpreter, and the rest of the M2C citation cartel continue to insist that M2C is the only viable theory. Lately they’ve also adopted SITH.

These scholars continue to misrepresent the issues involving Cumorah, they castigate “Heartlanders” with straw man arguments, and they manipulate the historical record to accommodate M2C. As we’ve seen, even the Joseph Smith Papers manipulates Church history to accommodate this theory of Book of Mormon geography.

Why?

Why would well-educated, experienced scholars cling to M2C and SITH, knowing that these theories repudiate the teachings of the prophets they claim to honor, respect and follow?

Maybe it’s simple Groupthink; they’re in a bubble because they’ve been trained/educated by M2C/SITH sayers, and everyone they work with thinks alike.

Maybe it’s traditional, ordinary academic arrogance, the not-invented-here syndrome. 

And maybe it is a result of neurophysiology. 

_____

For M2C/SITH-sayers, the idea that Cumorah really is in New York is unfamiliar and even threatening. The implications: a New York Cumorah means that these faithful LDS teachers have been misleading generations of Latter-day Saint students. 

The idea that Joseph Smith actually translated the plates is also unfamiliar and threatening for the same reasons. 

An excerpt from Whole Brain Living explains how people who are threatened cannot access their rational thinking brains. 

When something does not feel familiar, however, our amygdalae tend to label that unfamiliar thing as dangerous, and they respond by triggering our fight-flight-or-play-dead fear response. If it has been your natural tendency to fight, you probably rage, get big and loud, go on the attack or try to shoo the thing away. If it is your style to run like the wind or play dead, then that response may be your best choice.

When our amygdalae are triggered and we feel fear, we are not able to run the learning and memory circuitry of our hippocampi. Until we push the pause button and take a moment to calm down and feel safe again, we will not be able to think clearly. This is why anyone who is freaking out with test anxiety tends to perform poorly, regardless of how well prepared they are. When our limbic anxiety circuit is triggered, we are neuroanatomically cut off from accessing our higher cortical thinking centers, which is where our learned knowledge is stored.

When we understand the physiological connection between these parts of the brain, we can re-assess the work of the M2C/SITH-sayers with greater understanding and empathy.

Source: About Central America

Two miles north of my house here in Oregon, a research project is underway that holds the potential for producing constant, carbon-free, and inexpensive energy. 

It relies on the principle of multiple working hypotheses. Several methodologies are being tested.

https://pacwaveenergy.org/south-test-site/

This is a good metaphor for understanding Church history and Book of Mormon historicity/geography. 

When we’re open to new ideas, we discover that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were right all along. 

There is one Cumorah and it’s in New York. Joseph Smith actually translated the engravings on the plates.

It’s simple, clear, direct. Just like the message of the Restoration.

We have new, clean energy that solves old problems.

The future is bright and exciting. 

_____

On the other hand, the M2C/SITH* citation cartel is stuck with old “technology” because they are so deeply invested in M2C and SITH they cannot even imagine a scenario in which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery told the truth.

M2C and SITH are the dirty coal of the Restoration.

It’s time to move on from M2C and SITH.

Source: About Central America

A thoughtful piece in the Wall St. Journal discussed the burden of deciding. The context was the conflicting expert advice about covid about which the Washington Post says: “A strange unity of confusion is emerging.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/experts-disagree-and-so-should-you-media-washington-post-fauci-covid-response-test-omicron-11642111728?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

We see the same situation among modern LDS intellectuals, particularly those who have set themselves up as “experts” and who have thereby justified their repudiation of what the prophets have taught about Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Engaged learners don’t depend on experts to tell them whether or not to accept the teachings of the prophets.

Excerpt:

It is bewildering to receive changing and conflicting information from experts. But it also shows some things about our fundamental situation as creatures that have to believe and act without omniscience. Nothing, not even the experts, can relieve you of the burden of deciding what to believe. Even if all you want to do is believe whatever the experts say, that is itself a decision. Then you’ve got to decide who is an expert and which experts to believe.

Consider a hypothetical person who was born in 1922 and has resolved for the past century to believe all and only what the experts said. On topics such as race and sex, economics and law, astronomy and physics, psychology and medicine, our centenarian would have beliefs now entirely incompatible with those he had at the beginning. If he were to reflect on these changing beliefs, he’d have to conclude that most of the things most of the experts in most areas had said for most of the past 100 years were false. He’d do well to assume that most of what they’re saying now is false as well.

… Sheer deference [to experts] would fetch you up in complete incoherence. And experts are people too. They’re muddling through like we are; they are confused too; they forget a key detail; they see what they expect or want to see.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

The long-anticipated volume of the Joseph Smith Papers containing the Original Manuscript was released in December 2021. It’s available at Deseret Book here.

The description: 

Volume 5 of the Revelations and Translations series presents all extant fragments of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. For the first time ever, researchers will have access to a photograph and color-coded transcripts of each fragment of the manuscript, showing every change made and which scribe make it.

I bought one of the first copies when I was in Salt Lake in December. With high-resolution images and an excellent transcript, this is a spectacular volume, even better than I hoped for.

Except for the commentary.

IMO, the Introduction manipulates the historical sources to promote the editors’ theories about Book of Mormon geography (M2C) and the translation (SITH). It’s inexcusable for such a professional, beautiful book to be tainted by this type of editorial interference.

I faced a choice. Should I say nothing and watch as these editorial decisions continue to obfuscate the historical sources in favor of modern theories, or should I comment about my observations in the hope that our scholars will adopt a more serious academic approach? I chose the latter, and I posted a detailed analysis here: https://www.academia.edu/s/5728ebc3d7?source=link. The Abstract is at the end of this post.

I hope the scholars at the Joseph Smith Papers will take my observations as I intend them; i.e., I want the Joseph Smith Papers to present accurate history from the perspective of the people who lived that history. Readers should be able to trust the editors to provide useful insights and background that illuminate, but do not taint, the historical documents. Context is obviously important and welcome, but not when it is manipulated to accommodate modern theories, particularly about Book of Mormon geography and the manner of translation. 

Or, if they insist on accommodating modern theories, they should at least acknowledge multiple working hypotheses, including the possibility that Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries told the truth.

_____

Readers often contact me to ask why the dominant LDS scholars continue to promote M2C and SITH. I’ve discussed the intellectual genealogy of those theories, but the origins of M2C and SITH are well know. Their persistence is more inexplicable.

From all my discussions and reading, the best explanation I can come up with is academic inertia.

Groupthink among scholars is a perennial problem. Scholars typically seek to make a name for themselves by finding a new historical source or proposing a new theory. That’s how we ended up with the “New Mormon History.” But once accepted, theories such as M2C and SITH become entrenched. Scholars devote their time and energy defending and upholding their theories, particularly when they’ve taught them for decades. 

Their admiring students naturally incorporate their mentors’ theories as mental filters through which they see the world.

I’ve referred to this as the academic cycle.

This problem seems to be exacerbated in the LDS community, partly because students are primed to believe their LDS teachers at BYU and CES, and partly because some LDS scholars claim they’ve been hired by the prophets to guide Church members in these areas. 

Thus, we have a journal titled The Interpreter, as if “the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), along with other members of the M2C citation cartel that tell us such things as how the teachings of the prophets “are to be understood and used.”

We have the Saints books that change Church history to accommodate M2C and SITH. We have notes in the Joseph Smith Papers that promote M2C and SITH. I’ve blogged about this problem since 2018, and the problem is getting worse.

IMO, the worst demonstration of this editorial agenda is in the notes and commentary in volume 5 of Revelations and Translations: The Original Manuscript. 

A far healthier academic approach would be to acknowledge multiple working hypotheses, always subject to revision and improvement as new information comes forward. 

Source: About Central America