Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

Classic Post #4 – Why does Cumorah matter?

Why does Cumorah matter?

Some people new to this blog ask why I focus on the New York Cumorah. It’s a good question, and recent events have prompted a clearer explanation. 

The simple answer: 

The New York Cumorah is the only known touchstone between the real world and Lehi’s promised land. 

By repudiating the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, M2C scholars have 

(i) distorted the text of the Book of Mormon, 

(ii) cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of the prophets, and 

(iii) misdirected the pursuit of evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.

_____

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said Cumorah was in western New York because (i) they learned it from their personal experience visiting the repository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6) and (ii) they knew Cumorah’s location was an essential fact to refute the claim that the Book of Mormon was fiction. 

Understanding these key points, Joseph’s contemporaries and successors as Church leaders frequently reiterated the New York location of Cumorah.  

But–and this is a key point–we don’t even have to take their word for it. The New York Cumorah is consistent with the text itself and with extrinsic evidence including archaeology, anthropology, geography and geology. 

Nevertheless, a handful of LDS scholars decided the prophets were wrong. These scholars adopted the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C) that had been developed by RLDS scholars in the early 1900s. Because of their privileged academic status at BYU and CES, these scholars have managed to impose their theories on Latter-day Saints throughout the world.

I think all of these scholars are honorable, fine people with good intentions. They make important and useful contributions to our knowledge base. I like them all personally, but that has nothing to do with the problem of scholars vs. prophets. We can trust, more or less, but we should also verify by making our own informed decisions.

_____

Some time ago on MormonStories.org, Jim Bennett discussed the “Heartlander thing.” (If you don’t know Brother Bennett, he is known for a lengthy response to the CES Letter, which we’ll discuss below). Judging by Brother Bennett’s comments, our LDS credentialed class continue to miss the point. 

Jim Bennett on MormonStories

During the interview, he said, “This is a huge controversy now. I don’t know if you follow the whole “Heartlander thing.” I think it’s fascinating because you’ve got these guys that, the most important principle of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is the location of the Hill Cumorah. To me I think, what the heck is your problem? Who cares? It doesn’t matter to me at all. That has nothing to do with anything.” (see reference below)

Saying it doesn’t matter is a natural response for someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. 

Despite Brother Bennett’s pejorative characterization, those of us labeled by these scholars as “Heartlanders” spend most of our time serving in the Church, doing missionary and temple work, and testifying of Christ. We think the Book of Mormon is an authentic history, supported by strong evidence in addition to the teachings of the prophets, but we don’t accept the speculations of scholars who repudiate those teachings. Naturally, the scholars are upset.

Those who follow this blog know how sensitive the M2C scholars are about the question of Cumorah. Their cognitive dissonance can’t reconcile the inherent contradiction between claiming to believe and follow the prophets, but also repudiating what the prophets have taught about Cumorah (such as in Letter VII).

(click to enlarge)

On one hand, they openly say the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah, that they were speculating, expressing their own incorrect opinions as men, etc. Realize, they are talking not only about Joseph and Oliver, but members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. 

On the other hand, these same scholars get upset when people point out they are repudiating the prophets. They get defensive. Some get aggressive. (Oddly, some of my critics try to debate these issues, as if I couldn’t make their arguments as well as they do. My time is better spent seeking ways to support and corroborate the teachings of the prophets instead of seeking ways to undermine and disavow–repudiate–those teachings.) 

Cognitive dissonance is unpleasant. Usually people deal with it by telling themselves the issue, whatever it is, “doesn’t matter,” the way Brother Bennett did. In the LDS context, this is called “putting it on the shelf,” meaning they’ll set it aside and try not to think about it, hoping for a future resolution.

But the issue is not going away.

_____

The question of Cumorah is not a harmless bit of academic speculation. 

Many faithful Latter-day Saints can’t understand why LDS scholars would speculate about Cumorah when we have the unambiguous teachings of the prophets on this topic. We can’t read the minds of the M2C intellectuals, but we can read their publications. 

We can see that Book of Mormon Central is spending millions of dollars annually to persuade people that the prophets were wrong and the scholars are correct. There is nothing so predictable as scholars insisting their theories are correct because of their superior credentials. The credentialed class need people to be dependent on them to justify their employment (and fundraising). The handful of LDS scholars who promote M2C have created a facade of like-minded publications and organizations that publish and cite one another’s work, which I call the M2C citation cartel. 

Their logo is a repudiation of the New York Cumorah; the Mayan glyph represents their insistence that the Book of Mormon is actually a  Mayan codex that Joseph (or whoever put the words on the stone in the hat) mistranslated because he didn’t understand Mayan culture.

Their cognitive dissonance is evident in their disparate treatment of Oliver Cowdery. When discussing Oliver’s teachings about the angel showing him and David Whitmer the plates, they scour every possible source. They examine every letter, newspaper article, or mention in third-party accounts. 

See https://evidencecentral.org/evidence/oliver-cowdery.

But when it comes to Cumorah, they ignore (or worse, reject as ignorant speculation) what Oliver explicitly wrote in his essays about Church history, particularly Letter VII. These essays were written with the assistance of Joseph Smith, copied into Joseph’s personal history, and republished at Joseph’s direction multiple times (Times and Seasons, Gospel Reflector, Millennial Star, the Prophet), but Book of Mormon Central claims Oliver’s formal, explicit, and official teaching was wrong–solely because their academic theories contradict what Oliver taught.

_____

We’ve reached the point where BYU professors use the BYU fantasy map to teach students about the Book of Mormon, portraying the Book of Mormon as taking place in a fictional setting. Surveys show that more and more active Latter-day Saints think the Book of Mormon is not an actual history. That trend can only accelerate as the BYU fantasy map becomes de facto doctrine in the minds of BYU and CES students.

Modern LDS scholars claim Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah. They say Joseph “didn’t know much about the Book of Mormon,” and whatever he thought at first, by 1842 he changed his mind because of a popular travel book and came to depend on scholarship instead of what he learned directly from Moroni and his personal experiences.

Leveraging their positions of trust as teachers at BYU and CES, they have used the academic cycle to persuade several generations of LDS students to prefer their M2C theories over the teachings of the prophets–mostly by censoring Cumorah.

Influential scholars have sought to eliminate cognitive dissonance among Church members by censoring the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. They have managed to “disappear” references to Cumorah from curriculum, media, visitors centers, and even Church history, as we see in the Saints book. The current version of the Gospel Topics entry on Book of Mormon geography doesn’t mention Cumorah; instead, it frames Joseph Smith as equivocal and uncertain, exactly how our M2C citation cartel wants him to appear. (That entry was revised after I pointed out obvious errors, and it could and should be revised again to address Cumorah.)

We even have the Interpreter Foundation, which completely rejects Oliver’s teaching about Cumorah, creating a movie about the Three Witnesses–as if people won’t see the absurdity of claiming Oliver was only correct when he agreed with what modern scholars believe. Actually, all three of the witnesses referred to the “hill in New York” as the ancient Cumorah, but you won’t see that in their movie.

The problem is, the teachings of the prophets are available for everyone to see. People can read Letter VII right in Joseph’s own history, right in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

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

Fortunately, there are faithful Latter-day Saints who still accept the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and can help others understand them. (Not just me, but many others.)

Unfortunately, there are many critics and nonbelievers who use the futile censorship efforts of the M2C citation cartel to sow confusion among new and young Latter-day Saints who have been taught M2C exclusively and have never heard the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

Which brings us to the CES Letter. 

_____

Some time ago, Brother Bennett wrote a response to the CES Letter that (according to Bennett) Book of Mormon Central spent a lot of money promoting. That’s not surprising because in his response, Brother Bennett promoted both M2C and SITH. He claimed M2C started with the anonymous 1842 editorials in the Times and Seasons. 

Outside of the M2C bubble, informed Latter-day Saints know that the 1842 editorials said nothing about Cumorah. They know that in 1841, the Times and Seasons published the essays about Cumorah that unambiguously placed the site in western New York. They know that in 1842, in two signed letters published in the Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith refuted Orson Pratt’s theory about Central America and referred to Cumorah in New York.

Those living inside the M2C bubble, however, either don’t know these details of Church history or have rationalized them away. 

_____

Let’s look at how Brother Bennett dealt with the Cumorah question in his response to the CES Letter. Here (in green) are the passages from the CES Letter. Brother Bennett’s responses are in blue. My comments in red. (To see this in the original, go to https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf and search for “Cumorah.”)

6. Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites and Lamanites, who were supposed to have numbered in the millions.

Short Answer: Nonsense. There is a great deal of direct Old World archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, as well as a growing body of archaeological evidence in the New World, too. 

[Brother Bennett discusses the Old World evidence, then says] I’ll get to the New World evidence as I address the rest of your question. 

This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists have developed the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America)… 

No. The theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Central or South America can be documented to have been around since at least 1842, when the Times and Seasons, the Church paper edited by Joseph Smith at the time, published three unsigned editorials detailing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon theories. 

[These are the anonymous articles that say nothing about Cumorah and, contrary to Brother Bennett’s representation here, reflected the hemispheric model. IOW, CES Letter was correct, and Bennett was wrong. 

Ironically, just a few months earlier, the Times and Seasons published Joseph Smith’s signed Wentworth letter, in which Joseph rejected Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model (including Central America) by emphasizing that the remnant of Lehi’s posterity are “the Indians that live in this country.” 

Bennett also cited the equivocal Bernhisel letter that was obviously drafted by Wilford Woodruff and not even signed by Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, he writes…] 

To say that the idea of the Book of Mormon in a Central American setting is a late product of “unofficial apologists” is to ignore the words of the prophet himself.

… and claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned as the final battle of the Nephites is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.

It is not, in fact, in direct contradiction to anything Joseph Smith taught. Joseph never made reference to the hill in New York as Cumorah. 

[The M2C citation cartel simply censors historical evidence that contradicts their theories. Again, CES Letter is correct and Bennett is wrong. Joseph’s mother quoted Joseph referring to the Hill Cumorah in 1827, before he even got the plates. He could only have learned that from Moroni. In 1831, Parley P. Pratt explained that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently. And, of course, Joseph helped write Letter VII, had it copied into his history as part of his life story, etc.]  

No identification of the drumlin in New York as Cumorah can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants or any canonized revelation.

[D&C 128:20 was published in 1842 in the Times and Seasons as a letter from Joseph Smith to the Church. “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.” 

A year earlier, the Times and Seasons had published Letter VII, declaring it was a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place in the valley west of the “drumlin in New York” named Cumorah. Joseph’s contemporaries who read the Times and Seasons knew what the term “Cumorah” referred to. It was common knowledge. And if the “glad tidings” did not refer to the Book of Mormon that came from the “drumlin in New York,” to what was Joseph referring by the phrase “the book to be revealed” in this verse? Why would Joseph refer to “glad tidings from Cumorah” if Cumorah was a hill in southern Mexico that contained the repository of Nephite records but not the abridged plates?]

Even a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Hill Cumorah isn’t the hill in upstate New York where Joseph got the plates. 

[Notice, instead of a reading here, cursory or intense, Brother Bennett gives us his own M2C speculation, about what Moroni “presumably” did.]

In Mormon 6:6, Mormon states that he “hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.” [Emphasis added.] So the plates Moroni had after the massive bloody battle at Cumorah were specifically not plates that had been buried there. Moroni then spends decades wandering with these plates, presumably getting as far away from Cumorah as possible, and then buries them up for Joseph to find in an area far removed the Cumorah carnage.

[Orson Pratt explained that the repository was in a separate department of the hill from where Moroni constructed his stone box. This is consistent with what David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said. But our M2C citation cartel has to persuade us that two of the three witnesses misled the Church about Cumorah. Actually, Martin Harris also referred to the hill as Cumorah in 1830 as well.]

It is correct to say that many Church leaders have equated the New York Hill with Cumorah, but the Church’s official position on Book of Mormon geography has always been one of neutrality, and they have scrupulously avoided officially jumping in to the long-running debate over where the Book of Mormon took place. 

[This is revisionist history and rhetorical commingling. Church leaders have always taught that Cumorah is the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates–no prophet or apostle has ever questioned that teaching. That’s separate from the question of where other events took place, a topic about which Church leaders have not taken a position. The Gospel Topics entry on this conflates the two issues by omitting any reference to Cumorah, but that does not negate the clear historical record.]

Now is it true that many – but not all – prophets, apostles, and members have long believed, and many still believe, that the New York his [sic] is the BoM Cumorah. We keep coming back to infallibility and the lack thereof, and so many of your objections are rooted in the idea that if even apostles make mistakes like this, the Church can’t be true. 

[This isn’t a question of “making mistakes.” We have specific declarations that the New York Cumorah is a fact, repeated by many Church leaders for over 150 years. The M2C citation cartel asserts these are mistakes solely because they disagree with the Church leaders and disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver said, based on their personal experience. People can believe and disbelieve whatever they want, but everyone should make informed decisions, not just rely on the obfuscation of the M2C citation cartel.] 

That’s not just wrong; it’s bad doctrine. 

Mormons ought to realize that agency trumps infallibility every single time. In the absence of direct revelation, speculation fills the gaps. There is no direct revelation about the specific whereabouts of any Book of Mormon location, so prophets and anyone else are perfectly capable of acting in good faith and still reaching incorrect conclusions, which seems to be precisely what they did in this instance. Like it or not, that’s how agency works. That’s mortality. That’s life, in and out of the Church.

[This is clever rhetoric, but it’s a straw man. No one is claiming that Joseph and Oliver taught the New York Cumorah based on revelation (although the absence of a written revelation does not mean they did not receive revelation on the topic). Instead, Joseph said he learned the name even before he translated the plates. Oliver said he and Joseph visited Mormon’s repository of records in the “drumlin in New York” multiple times. David Whitmer said the messenger (one of the 3 Nephites) took the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah.]

It also makes little sense in light of the Church’s visitor’s center near the Hill Cumorah in New York and the annual Church-sponsored Hill Cumorah pageants.

It makes a great deal of sense. It’s still the hill where Joseph got the plates, so it’s quite significant to Book of Mormon history.

CES letter makes more sense here. Why refer to the hill as Cumorah if it was just a drumlin in New York thousands of miles away from the “real Cumorah” in southern Mexico? The answer is, because the prophets declared this was the actual hill Cumorah. 

Thanks to the efforts of the M2C citation cartel, visitors to the Hill Cumorah today never learn why the hill is named Cumorah! There is no exhibit of the teachings of the prophets. Site missionaries are not allowed to even read Mormon 6:6 with visitors.  

We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) with deaths numbering in the tens of thousands – the last battle between Lamanites and Nephites around 400 AD claimed at least 230,000 deaths on the Nephite side alone. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence of a battle whatsoever has been found at this site.

None in upstate New York, no, which is not at all surprising, as the Book of Mormon itself makes it crystal clear that that’s not where either Cumorah or Ramah actually was

[Now we see the serious problem our M2C scholars have created. CES Letter is merely repeating the expectations raised by the scholars, who have to inflate Book of Mormon populations to be consistent with their Mesoamerican setting. They continually reinterpret the text to fit whatever new discoveries are made in Mesoamerica.

The other approach is to look at the text to inform our expectations. 

The text points out that the bodies were not buried. Unburied bodies (including bones and hair) disintegrate rapidly; otherwise, our forests and fields would be full of carcasses of deer, elk, buffalo, etc.  

CES Letter exaggerates by mentioning chariots and armor. Mormon 6:9 explains that they had the sword, the bow, the arrow, the ax, and “all manner of weapons of war.” Upstate New York has had abundant evidence of such weapons, dating to Book of Mormon time frames, which are found in museum and collections throughout the area. In the Cumorah area, farmers used to give them to tourists. The Bean children used arrowheads as skipping stones because they were so abundant. The exception, arguably, is “swords,” but even there, the text describes swords “cankered with rust” which means iron, which means we wouldn’t find them after a few years or decades.

In Letter VII, Oliver explained there were fewer than 10,000 Jaredites in their final battles and the numbers of Nephites and Lamanites were in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. A careful reading of the text shows there were at most 20,000 Nephites killed there, and that’s assuming the phrase “ten thousand” is a literal count and not a translation of a term such as “unit” or “patrols” like in the Old Testament. I compare this to the Battle of Hastings, where 10,000 men were killed without a trace.] 

The rest of this section continues with CES Letter repeating the expectations raised by the M2C scholars, with Brother Bennett pointing toward Mesoamerica as the answer. 

Instead, informed Latter-day Saints can point to museums and private collections throughout the midwestern and northeastern U.S. to show evidence of exactly the descriptions contained in the Book of Mormon. 

By repudiating the teachings of the prophets and refocusing our attention on Mesoamerica, our M2C scholars have created unnecessary problems. The have adopted their own interpretations of the Book of Mormon to fit Mesoamerica. They say Joseph (or whoever put the words on the stone in the hat) mistranslated the text by failing to describe pyramids, Mayans, tapirs, jaguars, jade, and jungles, so they “find” these elements of Mesoamerica themselves. They regularly contort the text to align with the latest archaeological discoveries in Mesoamerica.  

___________

To review:

The New York Cumorah was a specific, evidence-based rebuttal to the claim of critics that the Book of Mormon was fiction, composed by Joseph Smith and/or Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, etc. Joseph and Oliver never claimed a revelation about Cumorah; instead, they claimed personal experience. Joseph learned the name from Moroni even before he translated the plates. Oliver explained that he and Joseph had visited the repository of Nephite records (Mormon 6:6) inside the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates in Moroni’s stone box–a separate department of the hill (as Orson Pratt explained). 

But a handful of LDS intellectuals disagreed. They rejected what the prophets taught and instead sided with a couple of RLDS scholars who, in the early 1900s, had concluded that Cumorah was actually somewhere in southern Mexico. (This is M2C, or the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

Through the academic cycle (because they were teaching at BYU) and over a couple of decades they’ve managed to persuade most of their students to repudiate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. Now, the New York Cumorah is being systematically disappeared (I call it de-correlated), to the point where even the Saints book revised Church history to eliminate Cumorah from the historical record.  

Consequently, it is critics such as the CES Letter who are educating Latter-day Saints about what the prophets actually taught.

Hopefully, future Latter-day Saints will learn what the prophets have taught about Cumorah within a framework that supports and corroborates these teachings, instead of learning from our M2C scholars that the prophets were wrong.

_____

Transcript of Brother Bennett’s interview on MormonStories.org.

1:53:50
JB: This is a huge controversy now. I don’t know if you follow the whole “Heartlander thing.” I think it’s fascinating because you’ve got these guys that, the most important principle of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is the location of the Hill Cumorah. To me I think, what the heck is your problem? Who cares? It doesn’t matter to me at all. That has nothing to do with anything. The point is, they point to all of these statements that were made by all of these prophets, seers and revelators and insist that the Book of Mormon has a hemispheric geography, that Cumorah was in fact the drumlin in New York where Joseph Smith got the plates, and that Joseph claimed that. But Joseph never did. 

JD: He called it the Hill Cumorah.

JB: No, he never did. Oliver did. There was a letter from Oliver where he defines that. Joseph, the only time we have Joseph referring to Cumorah is in the 128th section of the Doctrine and Covenants where it talks about “glad tidings from Cumorah.” But when he recounts his history he does not refer to the hill where he got the plates as Cumorah. I think he probably believed it was. But there was no statement by any prophet, seer or revelator that claims a revelation that delineates where Cumorah is or delineates a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon. 

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Classic Post #3 – Letter VII and No-wise #453

No-wise #453: How Are Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate Letters to Be Understood and Used?

Today we’ll look at my all-time favorite No-wise, #453. This is the most outrageous assertion of academic arrogance published by Book of Mormon Central so far, and that’s saying a lot.

Just look at the title. They assert the authority to tell us what to think, as if we can’t be trusted to read and think for ourselves.
This is the No-wise that tries to persuade Latter-day Saints that it is “more appropriate” to reject the explicit, factual teachings of the Assistant President of the Church (and other prophets/apostles) than to even question the theories of modern scholars. 
In my opinion, this is an example of the worst of LDS apologetics, relying on sophistry, obfuscation, censorship, deceptive rhetoric, and inconsistent, outcome-driven standards of evidentiary burdens of proof.
NOTE: I’m writing this as a helpful believer in the Book of Mormon; i.e., as someone who wants to see Book of Mormon Central (BMC) become legitimate. About 80% of what BMC does is awesome, but the entire organization is tainted by their insistence that M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) is the only acceptable interpretation of the text and of Church history. 
BMC should recognize that there are multiple working hypotheses, all faithful, productive, and supported by evidence, for Latter-day Saints to consider. 
Instead of telling people what to think and trying to enforce M2C with poorly researched and written  “Kno-Why’s” such as this one, BMC should help people make informed decisions by presenting all the evidence along with alternative interpretations so people can compare and contrast.
But let’s not hold our breath. BMC has raised and spent millions of dollars to promote M2C. Their principals have taught M2C to thousands of students and millions of Latter-day Saints. Their Mayan logo teaches M2C. 

They are too deeply invested in M2C to change now, and this No-wise exemplifies the seriousness of the problem.
_____ 

Below in red are the comments I would have made had they asked for my input as part of a legitimate peer review. (Of course, we know that nothing published by the M2C citation cartel ever undergoes a legitimate peer review–their work wouldn’t withstand such a review so they used peer approvals instead–but it’s fun to think about what such a peer review would look like.)

BMC’s cognitive dissonance is on full display in this No-wise. Faced with specific factual statements by Church leaders that directly contradict M2C, they are forced to openly repudiate the prophets. Then they resort to sophistry, misdirection and censorship to confuse and mislead the Latter-day Saints and other believers in the Book of Mormon.


It’s tragic, because BMC has raised a lot of money from Church members who have been persuaded by BMC’s claim that BMC follows the Church’s policy of neutrality on Book of Mormon geography issues. Instead, as we can all see, BMC adamantly promotes M2C and aggressively repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. 

Like its corporate owner, BMAC, BMC is little more than an M2C advocacy group that actively teaches people to disbelieve the prophets.

My peer reviews are intended to offer people the alternative faithful interpretations that BMC refuses to offer or even acknowledge. Someday, we hope to dislodge BMC from its Groupthink M2C mentality.

Original in blue, my comments in red.
_____

How Are Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate Letters to Be Understood and Used?

[This needs to be reworded for two reasons. 

First, the prophets have long told us how to understand and use these letters. The letters have been reprinted multiple times in official Church publications. Portions of Letter I are canonized. Portions of Letter VII have been repeatedly taught by the prophets, and no prophet has ever repudiated or even questioned Letter VII’s teaching. 

Second, we cannot presume to tell Church members how to understand and use these letters, especially when we’re contradicting the prophets. The title should be something such as “Understanding the context and significance of Oliver Cowdery’s Messenger and Advocate letters.”]

The Know

Oliver Cowdery is undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the early history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the Church was headquartered in Kirtland, Ohio, Oliver served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate from October 1834 to May 1835 and again from April 1836 to January 1837.1
[This paragraph is misleading because of a glaring omission that can be easily corrected. In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery was ordained Assistant President of the Church, an office that made him senior to the Counselors in the First Presidency and the successor to Joseph Smith. As written, the paragraph implies that President Cowdery’s only office and responsibility was as editor of the newspaper, but Oliver wrote Letter VII as the Assistant President of the Church; i.e., as President Cowdery.]
During his early tenure as editor of the paper, Oliver wrote a series of letters to William W. Phelps, another prominent Mormon figure, detailing the early history of Joseph Smith, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, and the gathering of Israel. These letters, eight in total,2 
[Although they were published as letters, Oliver wrote these essays for the benefit of the public as well as the Latter-day Saints generally. Footnote 2 has issues that I discuss directly in the footnote below] 
were written partly to combat anti-Mormon opposition and partly to increase the faith of Church members by publishing “a more particular or minute history of the rise and progress of the church of the Latter Day Saints [sic]; and publish, for the benefit of enquirers, and all who are disposed to learn.”3
[That quotation comes from Letter II. However, the No-wise fails to quote Oliver’s explanation for the essays:   Footnote 3 cites the Messenger and Advocate and gives links to BMC’s own database. Unsuspecting readers might conclude these are merely isolated letters published in an early Church newspaper. The letters were far more important than that, as we’ll see. You can read the quotation from Letter III in the Joseph Smith Papers, right in Joseph’s own history:
Note 3 is misleading in several respects, which I address in my comments on the note itself below.]
Although the Prophet Joseph Smith began composing his personal history in 1832,4 this early draft remained unpublished during his lifetime, effectively making Oliver’s letters in the Messenger and Advocate the earliest public history of Joseph Smith, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and several other related topics.5
[See comments on Footnote #4 below.]
The letters by Oliver Cowdery. Image via BYU Harold B. Lee Library
The letters by Oliver Cowdery. Image via BYU Harold B. Lee Library
Title and Publication Date
Content Summary
“Dear Brother,” [Letter I] (October 1834)
Introductory remarks; Oliver’s first meeting with Joseph Smith; translating the Book of Mormon; visitation of John the Baptist
“Letter II.” (November 1834)
Discussion of apostasy and restoration; past examples of opposition to the work of God
“Letter III.” (December 1834)
Early history of Joseph Smith; the “great awakening” and “excitement” around religious topics during Joseph Smith’s youth
“Letter IV.” (February 1835)
Visitation of Moroni to Joseph Smith in 1823; description of Moroni’s physical appearance and instructions to Joseph Smith
“Letter V.” (March 1835)
Discussion on the nature and calling of angels; discussion on “the great plan of redemption”; discussion on the preaching of the gospel and the gathering of Israel
“Letter VI.” (April 1835)
Further discussion on the gathering of Israel; biblical prophecies on the restoration of Israel; “rehearsal of what was communicated” to Joseph Smith by Moroni; summary of Book of Mormon teachings concerning the redemption of Israel in the latter days
“Letter VII.” (July 1835)
Description of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the golden plates; description of the hill in Palmyra, N.Y. “in which these records were deposited”; location identified as the “hill Cumorah”; identified as the same location where the Nephites and Jaredites were exterminated [and the location of the depository of all the Nephite records, the same depository that Joseph and Oliver and others visited multiple times in the New York hill.]
“Letter VIII.” (October 1835)
Description of the topography of the hill Cumorah; description of the “cement” box in which the plates were deposited; description of Joseph Smith’s first attempt to retrieve the plates; extensive quotations of Moroni’s teachings and instructions to Joseph Smith; history of Joseph Smith from 1823–1827; concluding remarks
The impact and authority of Oliver’s letters can be measured by several factors. First, “there is no evidence that Joseph Smith assigned Cowdery to write the letters.”6 
[The No-wise quotation itself is deceptive because it contradicts the meaning of the cited source. The original sentence should be quoted in full. Look at what the No-wise omitted (in bold): “Although there is no evidence that Joseph Smith assigned Cowdery to write the letters, he offered his assistance to ensure that the ‘narrative may be correct.'”
Besides deceiving readers, the excerpt is a gratuitous and irrelevant consideration because Cowdery never claimed Joseph directed him to write them. 
Surely the author of this No-wise understands that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Joseph could have assigned Oliver to write the history. But the No-wise implies a lack of authority or credibility if Oliver acted on his own initiative. That’s sophistry.
From the beginning, Oliver “was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church,” (D&C 20:3), who ordained Joseph Smith and was designated as “the first preacher of this church unto the church, and before the world,” (D&C 21:10-11). His stewardship over the printing office “and all things that pertain unto it” was designated by revelation (D&C 104:29). 
Oliver was qualified to write about his own experiences, as he did in these essays. He was the principal scribe, the only one besides Joseph who was authorized to translate, and the only witness besides Joseph Smith to the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (and the temple blessings restored in 1836).  
Second, the Prophet gave some support by providing Oliver details about “the time and place of [his] birth” and information about his adolescence that would help Oliver correct anti-Mormon misconceptions as a main concern,7 but it is unclear how much information Joseph supplied about other things. 
This is another deliberately misleading framing. In his introduction, Oliver explained that “there are many items… that render [Joseph’s] labor indispensable.” It is only “unclear” about how much information Joseph supplied because Oliver didn’t always distinguish between what he knew and what Joseph knew from their respective personal experiences. For example, Oliver pointed out that, regarding Moroni’s visit, Joseph couldn’t tell him exactly what time it was, but he did relate other details.
In addition to Joseph’s assistance, Cowdery assured readers he was relying on facts, used original documents then in his possession, and relied on his own experience, as he explained in his introduction to the essays:
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 readers, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts.]

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

Third, Joseph was impressed enough with Oliver’s letters that when he commissioned his 1834–1836 history, copies of them were included. 
[This passive voice is deceptive, as though the letters appeared there randomly. To correctly inform readers, the following should replace this passive voice. 
On 29 October 1835, Joseph’s journal entry notes: “Br W. Parish [Warren Parrish] commenced writing for me… my scribe commenced writing in my journal a history of my life, concluding President [Oliver] Cowdery 2d letter to W.W. Phelps, which president Williams had begun.” Journal, 1835-1836, in The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 1: 1832-1839, p. 76-77. See: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/?target=JSPPJ1_d1e14445#!/paperSummary/journal-1835-1836&p=11
Frederick G. Williams, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, began the transcription, but Warren Parrish completed it. Joseph Smith himself considered these letters as part of “a history of my life.”]
But they were included as a block and without any corrections or clarifications. 
[This is evidence that Joseph accepted them as correct as they were, whether because he helped write them as Oliver explained, or because he considered them to be based on facts, or both.]
“The transcription of [these] letters into [Joseph Smith’s] history was evidently conceived in terms of the entire series, not as a piecemeal copying of the individual letters.”8 
[This is another deceptive extract from the JSP comments. The final sentence of the paragraph containing the quoted sentence suggests an important reason for copying them this way: “With the serialized Cowdery letters complete or nearing completion, the new history kept in the ‘large journal’ could serve as a repository–more permanent than unbound newspapers–for a copied compilation of the entire series.” 
Later, in 1840, Joseph gave the letters to his brother Don Carlos to republish them in the Times and Seasons. It’s not known whether he gave him a copy of the Messenger and Advocate, or loaned him the “large journal,” or gave him another copy, but the only known copy Joseph kept in his possession was the “large journal,” so this is the most likely copy he gave Don Carlos.]
The men tasked with composing this early history were Frederick G. Williams, Warren Parrish, and Oliver himself, making the inclusion of the Cowdery letters an understandable move.9
[The purpose of this sentence is unclear. Does the No-wise want us to believe President Cowdery put the letters in the large journal because he wrote them? That implication is implausible because Cowdery didn’t copy any of the letters into the journal. The only one who commented on their including in the journal was Joseph Smith himself.]
Finally, Oliver’s letters were republished on multiple occasions by Church presses in both North America and Europe, making them effective missionary tools in early Mormon proselytizing efforts, but again without the benefit of any improvements or the supervision of Joseph Smith.10
[This sentence is deceptive because Joseph gave specific permission to Benjamin Winchester to republish the letters in the Gospel Reflector, and he personally gave the letters to his brother Don Carlos to publish in the Times and Seasons. Joseph’s brother William published them again in 1844 in The Prophet.
The sentence contains two misleading implications. First, it implies that Joseph did not improve or supervise the writing of the letters before they were originally published, an implication that contradicts both what President Cowdery actually said and how Joseph Smith acted when he had the letters republished.
Second, the sentence implies that the essays as published needed improvements or Joseph’s supervision, another implication that contradicts the evidence. 
This sentence reveals the wishes of the No-wise that the letters had not been published because they contradict the M2C narrative that BMC has been promoting for years.]
Even though Oliver’s history was undoubtedly popular among early Mormons, historians recognize that it does not tell the whole story and cannot be taken entirely at face value. 
[No written document can “tell the whole story” so that is sophistry setting up a false ideal. It should be deleted. The phrase “cannot be taken entirely at face value” is meaningless because it casts doubt on the entirety of the letters, including the portion canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. Specific examples are necessary. Besides, President Cowdery himself explained the difference between speculation and fact throughout the letters.]
For instance, Letter III provides a retelling of Joseph’s youth which includes the religious excitement that caused Joseph to reflect on where he could turn for answers to his soul-wrenching questions,11 but then, Oliver omits any description of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1820.12 
[There could be many reasons for the omission of the First Vision, all of which are speculative, but the omission does not contradict what is included in the letters. 
The omission of the First Vision is actually consistent with other historical sources, including Lucy Mack Smith’s recollections, when she “omitted” the First Vision and described the visit of Moroni in 1823 instead. The 1845 revision of her history simply inserted Joseph’s published account instead. 
Joseph explained that he told no one about the First Vision other than the one Methodist minister who treated Joseph’s account “with great contempt.” (JS-H 1:21)]
None of Joseph’s early associates said they remembered him relating the First Vision. His 1832 history, which apparently wasn’t published or disseminated, doesn’t relate it in any detail. 
On November 14, 1835, (after all of the essays had been published), Erastus Holmes asked Joseph about the history of the Church. Joseph “gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6, years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14, years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon.” Joseph Smith, Journal, 1835-1836, available online at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/38
Thus, even after the essays were published, Joseph merely referred to the first vision as involving “Angels” without elaborating. 
At first glance, Oliver’s narrative “appears to be leading up to the story of the First Vision,”13 but then it abruptly skips the First Vision and instead places the religious excitement not between the years 1818­–1820, as Joseph himself would do in his 1838 history,14 but in the year 1823 with the visitation of Moroni.15 Furthermore, instead of depicting Joseph as praying to God in the woods in consequence of this turmoil in 1820, as Joseph made clear in his own official history,16 Oliver describes him as praying in his bedroom.17 
[This is a bizarre criticism that looks at a history compiled 3 years later by Joseph’s scribes to cast doubt on what Oliver explained that Joseph directly told him. Normal historical analysis favors earlier accounts over later ones. Both accounts were published in the Times and Seasons, but only Oliver’s was published in multiple Church publications during Joseph’s lifetime. This isn’t to cast doubt on the 1838 account of the First Vision, but it makes no logical sense to blame Oliver for not relating an account that Joseph himself didn’t relate until three years later. Perhaps Joseph had asked Oliver not to publish the First Vision because the time wasn’t right. Maybe Joseph waited until he had a second witness of the Savior, which didn’t occur until the Kirtland temple experience in 1836. 
The No-wise had just explained that Oliver omitted the First Vision account, so Oliver could not have been writing about Joseph’s first prayer in the woods. Oliver’s account of the context of Moroni’s visit is consistent with Lucy’s recollection as well. 
Oliver specifically explains that Joseph related the account of Moroni’s visit. 
“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.”
There was religious excitement throughout these decades, as is evident from the response to the Book of Mormon itself in the 1830s.]
Besides these errors, 
[The article has not pointed to any errors, apart from the author’s own belief that the narrative “appears to be leading up to the story of the First Vision” but then doesn’t fulfill the author’s expectations. That’s an error on the part of the author and the No-wise, not on the part of Cowdery..]
Oliver includes lengthy quotations of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith which are unlikely to be a verbatim recapturing.18 
[Speculation about likelihood is pure confirmation bias and argument, not factual analysis. President Cowdery noted where he was not quoting verbatim, which implies that the balance was verbatim, or at least to the best of Joseph’s recollection. Whether Cowdery was reporting what Joseph told him in 1834-5, what Joseph told him in 1829 as Cowdery recorded in his notebook, or what was contained in other “original documents” that Cowdery referred to but are no longer extant, it is impossible to determine at this point. But any of these sources could have been Joseph’s verbatim recitation, so we cannot judge the likelihood of Cowdery’s quotations being verbatim. I would delete this argumentative rhetoric and stick with known facts and reasonable inferences from those facts.]
Given that this depiction of Moroni’s interviews with Joseph between 1823–1827 was published some years after their occurrence, and given the fact Oliver was not present during these visits, it is more likely that, true to his extravagant literary style, Oliver somewhat embellished his account to enhance its readability and appeal.19 
[This speculation is more confirmation bias, designed to cast doubt on the words of the prophets. It should be deleted, particularly because Oliver explained that Joseph couldn’t tell him exactly how many hours passed before Moroni appeared, but supposed it was around 11 or 12 pm.]
This is not to say Oliver’s letters should be dismissed wholesale, only that they should be used carefully in historical reconstructions. 
[Is this the same standard we apply to all historical sources, regardless of content, or is this a viewpoint-driven observation?]
Portrait of Oliver Cowdery via the Joseph Smith Papers
Portrait of Oliver Cowdery via the Joseph Smith Papers

The Why

Oliver Cowdery was undeniably an important witness to the foundational events of the Restoration and his letters as published in the Messenger and Advocate offer a glimpse into these events. He was intimately familiar with the production of the Book of Mormon, having written it “with [his] own pen . . . as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters.”20 And, although Oliver fell into apostasy for a period, he never denied his testimony and returned to the Church a few years before his death.21
[The claim that Oliver “fell into apostasy” is unfounded and pejorative. The circumstances of his excommunication are murky, but no one claimed Oliver taught false doctrine or repudiated what he wrote in these essays or any other of his writings.] 
While Oliver’s letters certainly convey his moving personal testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, they don’t definitively establish other matters for which there is contrary historical evidence or which remain open to discussion. 
[This argumentative rhetoric appears to be leading to the real point of this article.]
This includes Book of Mormon geography. 
[Aha, now we reach the real purpose of this article. This explains the rhetorical efforts to cast doubt on President Cowdery’s work. The article is viewpoint oriented, after all. We’re seeing the work of M2C intellectuals here.]
While it is true that Oliver understood the hill near Palmyra, N.Y. where Joseph retrieved the plates to be the same hill Cumorah described in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites and the Jaredites perished,22 [see comments on this footnote below] it is unknown where Oliver got this idea. 
[It is only “unknown” when one ignores the historical evidence because that evidence contradicts M2C. We’ve already seen Parley P. Pratt’s account in which the hill in New York was named Cumorah anciently and Lucy Mack Smith’s accounts that Moroni himself identified the hill as Cumorah during his first visit and that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. Oliver was present with Joseph and David Whitmer when the messenger carrying the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah referred to the hill as Cumorah. Plus, of course, Oliver had actually visited the repository of Nephite records in the New York hill on multiple occasions.] 
Was it from assumptions he made based on his reading of the Book of Mormon, from prophetic insights offered by Joseph Smith, or from some other source?23 
[See the comment on footnote 23 below.]
In any case, unlike the Lectures on Faith in 1835, or Joseph’s Smith’s epistles to the Church in 1844, or the Pearl of Great Price in 1880, or even other texts attributed to Oliver such as the “Declaration of Government and Law” (now D&C 134),24 none of Oliver Cowdery’s letters from this series, including Letter VII, were ever canonized as binding revelation.25 
[This is very poor argument that should be deleted or at least rethought. During Joseph’s lifetime, President Cowdery’s letters were reprinted more often than all the other items mentioned here. They were ubiquitous and well understood among the Saints when Joseph wrote the letter that refers to Cumorah (D&C 128:20). Relatively few of Joseph’s own teachings have been canonized; not even his entire personal history has been because only excerpts appear in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith-History consists of excerpt from Joseph’s history, as well as excerpts from President Cowdery’s letters. In addition, President Cowdery’s letters, including Letter VII’s declaration about the New York Cumorah, have been repeatedly and consistently cited with approval by subsequent prophets, and never questioned.]
As many comments by Church leaders have made clear, the Church has no official position on the geography of Book of Mormon events.26
[This statement, although oft repeated by M2C intellectuals, is simply false and should be edited to read, “apart from the New York Cumorah, the Church has no official position…” The New York Cumorah has been consistently taught for over 150 years by many Church leaders, including members of the First Presidency in General Conference. It has never been questioned, disputed, or repudiated by any member of the Quorum of the Twelve or First Presidency. For comments on this, see the comments to note 26 below.]
Image of Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII. Image via BYU's Harold B. Lee Library
Image of Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII. Image via BYU’s Harold B. Lee Library
It is therefore more appropriate that, rather than seeing Oliver’s views on the topic of Book of Mormon geography as being authoritative, prophetic pronouncements, they should be seen as reflections of, if not the main cause behind, popular nineteenth-century Mormon speculation on Book of Mormon geography.
[Here the No-wise tells us that it is “more appropriate” to reject the explicit, factual teachings of the Assistant President of the Church (and other prophets/apostles) than to question the theories of modern scholars. The No-wise frames Oliver’s statements of fact as merely his “views,” despite Oliver’s explicit distinction throughout these essays between statements of fact and statements of speculation. Although Oliver separately related his accounts of visiting the repository of Nephite records in the hill, this No-wise frames Oliver’s statements of fact as mere “popular nineteenth-century Mormon speculation.” 
By any standard, this dismissal of President Cowdery’s essays is not only not “more appropriate,” but it is unconscionable. It’s all the worse because the only rationale–literally, the only rationale–for repudiating President Cowdery’s statements of fact is that they contradict the M2C theories of modern scholars, including the author of this No-wise. 
While it is clear that Joseph said he was visited by the angel Moroni on the west side of the unnamed hill near his family’s Manchester, N.Y., home,27 that is a separate matter from how far and wide Moroni had wandered during the 36 or more years after the final battle in A.D. 385 before he deposited the plates in A.D. 421 in their designated resting place.
The hill was anything but unnamed, as we’ve seen.
So, Oliver’s Messenger and Advocate letters need to be approached cautiously. Although they are not entirely free from error and embellishment, they are, of course, quite valuable to students of early Mormon history. They provide many important insights into the translation of the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the priesthood, matters with which Oliver was personally acquainted. Most of all, these letters are intended to be read and used for increasing faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in affirming belief in the Book of Mormon as the word of God.
This is classic apologetic dissembling. Note how the No-wise approves of “matters with which Oliver was personally acquainted” but nowhere mentions Oliver’s personal experience in the repository in the hill. It also glides right over Oliver’s explicit reliance on Joseph Smith for matters not within Oliver’s personal experience. Then it reassures faithful LDS readers that he, the author of the No-wise, is carefully affirming faith in Christ and belief in the Book of Mormon. 
It is difficult to imagine a more dishonest, manipulative analysis that we see in this No-wise. 
That’s why it’s my favorite of all the No-wise.
And, of course, we get a full course of M2C citation cartel publications in the “Further Reading” and Notes. 

Further Reading

John W. Welch, “Oliver Cowdery as Editor, Defender, and Justice of the Peace in Kirtland,” in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery, ed. Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 255–77.
Roger Nicholson, “The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835,”Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 27–44.
Book of Mormon Central, “Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?,” KnoWhy 431 (May 8, 2018).
  • 1.J. Leroy Caldwell, “Messenger and Advocate,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 2:892.
  • 2.The letters can be read online at the Book of Mormon Central archive.
  • [The footnote cites the Book of Mormon Central (BMC) archive. While this might be useful to drive traffic to the archive, a better reference would be the archive.org version of the Messenger and Advocate, https://archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm01unse#page/12, 
    which is searchable (unlike the BOMC archive),  easier to read than the BOMC archive, and lets readers see the letters in context.
  • Most readers would also appreciate a link to the Joseph Smith Papers where they can read these letters in Joseph’s own history:
  •  
  • 3.“Letter II,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 2 (November 1834): 27–28. In October of the same year [actually, the same year and month] that Oliver began [publishing] his letters, the anti-Mormon author E. D. Howe published his highly influential work Mormonism Unvailed [sic] in nearby Painesville, Ohio. In it, Howe attempted to prove that the Book of Mormon was a modern fabrication based on a manuscript written by a certain Solomon Spalding and that Joseph Smith’s reputation, including his honesty and moral character, was suspect. Howe’s book can be accessed online at https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe. Unlike other anti-Mormon writers, like Alexander Campbell, whom Oliver also responded to elsewhere in the Messenger and Advocate, Howe was never mentioned by name in any of Oliver’s letters to Phelps. [Naming Howe would only draw more attention to his book.] Nevertheless, the timing of the publication of Howe’s book, the considerable influence it wielded in popular discourse on Mormonism, and the overall content and focus of Oliver’s letters all make it seem very likely that Oliver was at the very least indirectly responding to Howe. 
  • [This note should inform readers that most of Howe’s book attacked the character of Joseph Smith and his family, a topic Oliver specifically addressed in Letter II and VIII (which was quoted at the beginning of this note).]
  • On Oliver’s efforts to defend the Church, see generally John W. Welch, “Oliver Cowdery’s 1835 Response to Alexander Campbell’s 1831 ‘Delusions’,” in Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, ed. John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2006), 221–239; John W. Welch, “Oliver Cowdery as Editor, Defender, and Justice of the Peace in Kirtland,” in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery, ed. Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 267–270.
  • [These are all typical citation cartel references that are not directly on point. The note should reference the only book ever published that focuses specifically on these letters, the first edition of which could once be read in the BOMC archive here: 
  • https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/letter-vii-0. Later editions of the book provide more detailed analysis and context and should be cited.  Letter VII: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery Explain the Hill Cumorah, Digital Legend, 2018.
  • Note that BOMC removed the book from their archive because they realized too many people were learning about Letter VII.]
  • 4.See “History, circa Summer 1832,” online.
  • 5.One year earlier, the Church’s newspaper The Evening and the Morning Star ran editorials by William Phelps on the content and message of the Book of Mormon and the early progress of Mormon missionary efforts, but these articles provided neither a substantive history behind the early life of Joseph Smith nor a clear narrative describing the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. See “The Book of Mormon,” The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 56–58; “Rise and Progress of the Church of Christ,” The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 11 (April 1833): 83–84. On the importance of Oliver’s letters as an early Church history, see Richard Bushman, “Oliver’s Joseph,” in Days Never to Be Forgotten, 6–10.” Phelps, “The Book of Mormon,” 57, appears to be the first recorded [published] instance of the hill in New York where Joseph Smith received the plates being called Cumorah.
  • [The earliest recorded instance is probably Oliver’s notebook in which he wrote everything Joseph told him when they were in Harmony in 1829. Although we don’t have that notebook, there are references to its existence and content. Another early record is Parley P. Pratt’s autobiography, in which he wrote of the 1830-1 missionary to the Lamanites that ““This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County.” Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, p. 43. Of course, Joseph’s mother related that Moroni referred to the hill as Cumorah when he first visited Joseph, and she quoted Joseph referring to the hill as Cumorah even before he got the plates, but we don’t know if she recorded that at the time, or merely recalled it later. Any of these, or another written or verbal source, could have provided the basis for Phelps’ article.]
  • 6.Karen Lynn Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), xxi.
  • 7.Joseph Smith letter to Oliver Cowdery, “Brother O. Cowdery,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 3 (December 1834): 40. It seems very likely that Joseph provided his support in an effort to counter the accusations made in Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed. Additionally, it seems that that Oliver had access to Joseph’s 1832 history and incorporated elements of it in his sketch of Joseph Smith’s early life. See the discussion in “JS Defended Himself in Letter in Messenger and Advocate,” online; Roger Nicholson, The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 27–44.
  • 8.Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1, 39.
  • 9.Pages 46–103 of the 1834–1836 history are written in the hands of these scribes. The history can be accessed online.
  • 10.Republications of Oliver’s letters began appearing in 1840 when Parley P. Pratt reprinted Oliver’s depiction of the visitation of Moroni to Joseph Smith. See “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 2 (June 1840): 42–44; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 5 (September 1840): 105–109; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 6 (October 1840): 150–154; “A Remarkable Vision,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 1, no. 7 (November 1840): 174–178. The letters were further republished in 1840 (“Copy of a Letter written by O. Cowdery,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 1 [November 1, 1840]: 199–201; “Letter II,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 2 [November 15, 1840]: 208–212; “Letter III,” Times and Seasons2, no. 3 [December 1, 1840]: 224–225; “Letter IV,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 4 [December 15, 1840]: 240–242; Orson Pratt, A[n] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions [Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840], 8–12), 1841 (“Letter VI,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 11 [April 1, 1841]: 359–363; “Rise of the Church,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 12 [April 15, 1841]: 376–379; “Letter VIII,” Times and Seasons 2, no. 13 [May 1, 1841]: 390–396; “O. Cowdery’s Letters to W. W. Phelps,” Gospel Reflector 1, no. 6 [March 15, 1841]; 137–176), 1843 (“O. Cowdery’s First Letter to W. W. Phelps,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 3, no. 9 [January 1843]: 152–154), and 1844 (Letters by Oliver Cowdery, to W.W. Phelps on the Origin of the Book of Mormon and the Rise of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Liverpool: Ward and Cairns, 1844]; “O. Cowdery’s Letters to W. W. Phelps,” The Prophet 1, no. 7 [June 29, 1844]).
  • [This footnote forgot to explain that Joseph Smith gave Benjamin Winchester express permission to publish the essays in the Gospel Reflector in 1841.  It cites The Prophet, which published Letter VII on June 29, 1844 (2 days after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith), but doesn’t include the other letters, which were published beginning with the first issue of The Prophet. The note doesn’t tell readers that William Smith, Joseph’s brother, was the editor when Letter VII was published in The Prophet. It also doesn’t disclose that the letters were later published in the Improvement Era when President Joseph F. Smith was the editor.]
  • 11.“Letter III,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 3 (December 1834): 42–43.
  • 12.Joseph’s journal entry on November 9, 1835, which was copied by Warren Cowdery into the 1834–1836 history project, clearly recounted the 1820 vision in which Joseph saw and heard two beings. See Dean C. Jessee, “The Earliest Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2017), 9–12. For a recent attempt at making sense of Oliver’s omission of the 1820 vision, see Nicholson, “The Cowdery Conundrum,” 27–44.
  • [This is the first account that mentions two beings (although it doesn’t identify them as the Father and the Son). But it, like the 14 November 1835 discussion with Erastus Holmes discussed above, postdates Oliver’s essays. There is no evidence that Joseph related the First Vision prior to this time, to Oliver or anyone else. In the cited article, Nicholson suggests possible reasons why Oliver omitted the First Vision. “One possibility is that Joseph saw where Oliver was going with the first installment of the story and then decided that he was not ready to have Oliver introduce the story of his First Vision publicly…. There is clearly no reason for him to have skipped such an important foundational event in the prophet’s life unless the Prophet requested it of him…. Oliver, it appears, knew more than he was allowed to write about at the time.”
  • Yet the No-wise frames this as an error on Oliver’s part.
  • 13.Bushman, “Oliver’s Joseph,” 6.
  • 14.History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], p. 1. “Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester [1819], there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion.”
  • 15.“Letter IV,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 5 (February 1835): 78. “You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr’s, age—that was an error in the type—it should have been in the 17th.—You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.”
  • 16.History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], p. 3. “I at last came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally and not upbraid, I might venture. So in accordance with this my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful clear day early in the spring of Eightteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had <​made​> such an attempt, for amidst all <​my​> anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.”
  • 17.“Letter IV,” 78–79. “On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind—his heart was drawn out in fervent prayer, and his whole soul was so lost to every thing of a temporal nature, that earth, to him, had lost its claims, and all he desired was to be prepared in heart to commune with some kind messenger who could communicate to him the desired information of his acceptance with God. . . . While continuing in prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven; endeavoring to exercise faith in the scriptures, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a purer and far more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room.”
  • 18.See “Letter VIII,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2, no. 1 (October 1835): 197–198, where Oliver quotes Moroni for an astounding 1078 words.
  • 19.Oliver’s overwrought verbosity, his penchant for “rhetorical flourishes” which make “the story more Oliver’s than Joseph’s,” his telltale “flowery journalese,” and his ”florid romantic language“ have been noted by careful readers. See for instance the remarks of Bushman, “Oliver’s Joseph,” 7; Arthur Henry King, The Abundance of the Heart (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1986), 204; Davidson et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1, 38.
  • [This subjective and gratuitous criticism of President Cowdery’s style is irrelevant to the reliability and credibility of the facts President Cowdery related.]
  • 20.“Last Days of Oliver Cowdery,” Deseret News (April 13, 1859)” 48.
  • 21.See Scott H. Faulring, “The Return of Oliver Cowdery,” in Oliver Cowdery, 321–362.
  • 22.Oliver makes his views plain in “Letter VII,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 10 (July 1835): 155–159. 
  • [What President Cowdery declared as facts, the No-wise dismisses as “his views.”]
  • 23.As made clear in Joseph Smith’s December 1834 letter cited above, the extent of the Prophet’s involvement with the compositions of the Messenger and Advocate letters was to provide Oliver with information about his youth and upbringing. In the absence of any corroborative evidence attesting to Joseph’s input beyond this, any comments made by Oliver in these letters concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon must therefore have been his alone.
  • [The premise is false because, as we’ve seen, Oliver related specifics that Joseph told him about Moroni’s visit, including Joseph’s inability to remember the exact time of Moroni’s visit. The language of the December letter indicates that Joseph wrote it before Oliver had published the articles anyway. Note 23 is yet another example of the problem with claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If everything beyond Joseph’s youth and upbringing came from Oliver’s imagination, speculation, or experience alone, which the No-wise implies would make the essays unreliable, Joseph was complicit in perpetuating these falsehoods by having the letters copied into his own history and by approving and directing their republication in Mormon publications.]
  • 24.“On August 17, 1835, in the midst of the Saints’ attempts to petition the government for help, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon presented a document titled ‘Declaration of Government and Law’ to Church members in Kirtland, Ohio. The declaration—now Doctrine and Covenants 134—sought to address all of the Saints’ concerns.” Spencer W. McBride, “Of Governments and Laws,” online at history.lds.org.
  • 25.An excerpt from Letter I providing Oliver Cowdery’s firsthand testimony of the translation of the Book of Mormon and the visitation of John the Baptist was included in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price as a footnote to republished portions of Joseph Smith’s 1838 history. The Pearl of Great Price was canonized as scripture in 1880. This excerpt is present in the current 2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History 1:71 footnote). Beyond this footnote reproducing part of Letter I, no material from the letters has been canonized, including any material from Letter VII concerning the location of the hill Cumorah.
  • 26.“Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.” John E. Clark, “Book of Mormon Geography,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:176. See also Book of Mormon Central, “Where Did the Book of Mormon Happen?” KnoWhy 431 (May 8, 2018). While a number of later Church leaders felt confident in following Oliver in identifying the hill Cumorah as the hill in New York, 
  • [Classic deception here. Every member of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency who has ever addressed the topic has affirmed the New York Cumorah, including specific witnesses given in General Conference. None has disputed or repudiated Letter VII.]
  • others, such as apostle and later Church president Harold B. Lee, demurred. “Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think?” 
  • [The M2C intellectuals continue to deceive Church members by taking this obscure, unofficial comment out of context, as I explained here: 
  • http://bookofmormoncentralamerica.blogspot.com/2017/10/fairmormons-famous-harold-b-lee.html]
  • For the Lee citation, and additional citations showing some variance amongst Church leaders on the issue of the location of the hill Cumorah, see FairMormon’s collection of Hill Cumorah Quotes.
  • [No surprise to see FairMormon, a charter member of the M2C citation cartel, cited here. I’ve addressed all of this and more in these blog posts:


  • http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2017/11/what-is-official-mormon-doctrine.html
  • My series on getting real about Cumorah, starting with my observations about John Clark:
  • http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/01/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-1-john.html
  • 27.Joseph Smith himself appeared somewhat ambivalent towards the location of the hill Cumorah. In Joseph’s earliest history the “place . . . where the plates [were] deposited” goes unnamed. History, circa Summer 1832, p. 4. In his 1838 history the Prophet again merely describes the location where he found the plates as “a hill of considerable size” without positively identifying it as Cumorah. History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], addendum, p. 7. Also in 1838, while describing how he obtained the Book of Mormon, Joseph spoke generally of “a hill in Manchester, Ontario County New York” as the repository of the plates, again without identifying it as Cumorah. Joseph Smith, Elders’ Journal (July 1838): 43. 
  • [By this standard, Joseph was “ambivalent” about most of the Book of Mormon. He never referred to most of the Book of Mormon prophets by name, nor did he quote most of the passages in the Book of Mormon. He could have had good reasons to avoid naming the hill, such as to avoid encouraging people to dig it up looking for treasure, but he would have had no reason to name the hill when all his contemporaries knew the name already.]
  •  Some 4 years later, however, in a letter dated 6 September 1842, Joseph exulted at hearing “Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, An Angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets.” “Letter to ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,’ 6 September 1842 [D&C 128],” p. 7. It’s conceivable that Joseph eventually accepted the identity of the hill Cumorah as being the hill in Palmyra after this theory became popular amongst early Church members. 
  • [This is an especially poor argument. It claims that it is “conceivable” that Joseph accepted a false folk theory, while it is not conceivable that (i) Joseph and Oliver actually visited the depository in the hill as explained by several prophets, (ii) that Joseph’s mother and Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were telling the truth in their accounts of the origin of the name Cumorah, and (iii) that all the prophets who have affirmed the New York Cumorah were also telling the truth. Plus, the same Times and Seasons that published Joseph’s 6 September 1842 letter had published Letter VII in 1841. Readers already knew the hill in New York was the hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 to which Joseph alluded.]
  • Be that as it may, it would still appear that, as with Oliver, Joseph Smith’s views on Book of Mormon geography were the product of his being informed by popular nineteenth century Mormon speculation, not revelation.
  • [This is even worse than the previous argument. The No-wise claims Joseph learned Book of Mormon geography from a popular travel book because he, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and all the other prophets who have affirmed the New York Cumorah are merely ignorant speculators who have misled the Church. This repudiation of the teachings of the prophets undermines their reliability and credibility on other topics.]
  •  See Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–275; “Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography,” FARMS Review 22, no. 2 (2010): 15–85; Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, and Atul Nepal, “Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons, and Central American Ruins,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 84–97; Neal Rappleye, “‘War of Words and Tumult of Opinions’: The Battle for Joseph Smith’s Words in Book of Mormon Geography,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 37–95; Matthew Roper, “John Bernhisel’s Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): 207–253; Mark Alan Wright, “Joseph Smith and Native American Artifacts,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 119–140; Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Central American Ruins, and the Book of Mormon,” in Approaching Antiquity, 141–162.
  • [These articles are all classic examples of the M2C citation cartel’s confirmation bias that I’ve addressed in detail. You can search for them on my blog. The bottom line of all of these M2C scholars is this:
  • The prophets and apostles are ignorant speculator who misled the Church until the M2C scholars, including Matt Roper, Neal Rappleye, Mark Alan Wright, etc. came along and corrected them.]

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Reframing our minds with hacks

Some thoughts from Twitter:

Scott Adams

@ScottAdamsSays

Here’s a reframe that will change some people’s lives forever: Your mind is the outcome of genetics, traumas and hacks.

If you don’t learn to hack (program) your own brain, the default is that you are little more than genes and traumas.
An example of a brain hack is education. It is a conscious choice to physically alter your brain via learning. Another hack is intelligent skill stacking.
Associating self-rewards with habits you want to deepen is a hack.
Learning to reframe your experiences is a hack. Learning to see reality as subjective is a hack. Learning to avoid “emotion pollution” from entertainment products is a hack.
Reframing sleep as a skill that can be learned is a hack.
Learning to put things in context is a hack. Practicing optimism is a hack.
If you make it your system (habit) to routinely learn and test new hacks, you become the author of your own mind, and — because your experience of reality is subjective — the author of your own experience.
Be the hack, not the trauma.

Martin Lukas
@realMartinLukas

Apr 3

Replying to

@ScottAdamsSays
Another reframe (avoiding hack): Your brain is like a computer. There’s an operating system (genetics) and there are programs. Some are bloatware (culture), some are malware (trauma), some are useful programs. YOU are the admin of your brain. YOU choose what program to run.

MdJuris
@md_juris

Apr 3

Replying to

@ScottAdamsSays
You were divinely created by God. Call it what you will, but the God of the Bible is sovereign and can do more than hack your brain, which he created.

Ernst
@ernsterlanson

Apr 4

Replying to

@ScottAdamsSays
I like the truth better. Your mind is a universal explainer. Capable of overcoming, genetics, traumas and hacks, and everything else

Maya Libretti
@mayalibretti

Apr 4

Replying to

@ScottAdamsSays
The second brain (enteric nervous system, separate from cranial/spinal nervous system) also informs our state of mind. “A big part of our emotions are influenced by the nerves in our gut.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Classic Post #2 – Simplicity

 

Simplicity

William of  Ockham

The simplest explanation is usually the best, a principle often described as Occam’s razor. “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

On the topic of Book of Mormon geography, which setting requires the fewest assumptions?

Which explanation is the simplest?

The New York Cumorah has one assumption.

1. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery knew that the Hill Cumorah in New York was the place where the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations were destroyed. 


This assumption is supported by these considerations. They knew because Moroni referred to it by name when he first visited Joseph Smith, because the divine messenger said he was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah before giving Joseph the plates of Nephi in Fayette, and because Joseph and Oliver had visited the repository of Nephite records in the hill Cumorah multiple times. Everything directly attributable to them is consistent with that setting. Contrary ideas are not directly attributable to them; therefore, these contrary ideas were produced by other people who didn’t know what Joseph and Oliver knew. The New York Cumorah does not dictate the rest of the geography, but it is a pin in the map that any legitimate model must include.

The Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs (M2C) setting relies on a series of assumptions that you must accept to believe M2C.


1. Joseph Smith did not know where the hill Cumorah is. 
2. Joseph’s mother Lucy Mack Smith related false memories when she explained that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah when he first appeared to Joseph Smith and when she quoted Joseph referring to Cumorah in early 1827, before he had obtained the plates.
3. Oliver Cowdery did not know where the hill Cumorah is.
4. Oliver, Joseph, (or another unknown person) at some unspecified date started a folk tradition that Cumorah was in New York, based on an incorrect assumption.
5. Oliver misled David Whitmer, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others when he told them he and Joseph had visited the repository of Nephite records.
6. When, as the Assistant President of the Church in 1835, Oliver misled everyone when he declared, in Letter VII, that it was a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates is the same hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6; i.e., the scene of the final battles and the location of the repository of Nephite records. 
7. Joseph, for unexplained reasons, passively adopted Oliver’s false speculation in Letter VII and had Letter VII copied into his own history as part of his life story, then approved repeated republication of Letter VII in Church publications and alluded to it when he wrote D&C 128:20.
8. Joseph, who wrote very little himself, nevertheless wrote a series of extensive articles in the Times and Seasons about Central America that he left anonymous for unknown reasons.
9. Although these anonymous articles don’t mention Cumorah, by implication they repudiate Letter VII, even though Letter VII continued to be republished afterwards in Church publications.
10. David Whitmer conflated his own specific memory of the first time he heard the word “Cumorah” with Oliver’s folk tradition.
11. All of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors who reiterated the New York Cumorah were expressing personal opinions but were misled by what Joseph and Oliver taught.
12. Modern scholars have determined that the prophets were wrong because the New York Cumorah doesn’t fit their interpretation of the text, which they claim can describe only a limited area in Mesoamerica.
13. Etc.

Which set of assumptions makes the most sense to you?

If you’re not familiar with Letter VII, Lucy’s statements, and the other teachings about Cumorah that are readily available in the Joseph Smith Papers, in General Conference reports, and in other sources, ask yourself why your sources have not informed you. 

Are they promoting or accommodating M2C instead of relating accurate Church history?

____________________________

Here are some relevant quotations about simplicity.

“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein

To which Groucho Marx replied:

“A child of five could understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
― Groucho Marx

“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”
― Isaac Newton

“Why did they believe? Because they saw miracles. Things one man took as chance, a man of faith took as a sign. A loved one recovering from disease, a fortunate business deal, a chance meeting with a long lost friend. It wasn’t the grand doctrines or the sweeping ideals that seemed to make believers out of men. It was the simple magic in the world around them.”
― Brandon Sanderson, The Hero of Ages

“People who pride themselves on their “complexity” and deride others for being “simplistic” should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

“..things are never as complicated as they seem. It is only our arrogance that prompts us to find unnecessarily complicated answers to simple problems.”
― Muhammad Yunus, Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty

“I am not a genius, I am just curious. I ask many questions. and when the answer is simple, then God is answering.”
― Albert Einstein

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Classic Post #1 – No-Wise #489 Where is the Hill Cumorah?

Before explaining my new approach for 2022, I’m going to repost some of the classic posts from the past. These are among the most popular posts in terms of page views.

Some of these involve analysis of the “Kno-Whys” from Book of Mormon Central, several of which are so poorly written and reasoned that I refer to them as “No-Wise.”

And I emphasize that people can believe whatever they want. That’s fine with me. I object only to the way these scholars use their positions of influence and power to persuade people to accept M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) while they (i) pretend they are informing their readers but they are actually misinforming them and (ii) hide their biases, particularly their repudiation of the teachings of the prophets. 

_____

Classic Post #1

No-Wise #489 Where is the Hill Cumorah?

No-Wise #489 is a definite keeper. It exposes the paucity of evidence to support M2C’s repudiation of the prophets. Let’s take a look.

Here’s the link. Here’s the opening image:

They chose an image that makes the Hill Cumorah in New York appear insignificant, which supports their M2C narrative.

Notice how Book of Mormon Central (BOC) superimposes their Mayan logo onto the image.

This is the logo that conveys their corporate mission to “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.” 

(If you go to that link, you’ll see they changed their mission statement after I posted this, but their content continues to promote their original corporate mission.)

The logo tells you everything you need to know about the content of no-wise #489. Like all the other no-wise articles published by BMC, this one promotes M2C.

BMC has zero interest in pursuing the truth, wherever it leads, because their main objective is to persuade members of the Church that the Book of Mormon is a Mesoamerican codex.

They take this objective so seriously that they repudiate the teachings of the prophets in its pursuit.

Let’s observe how they do so in no-wise #489.
_____

Here’s an extract from the no-wise in blue, along with my comments in red.

Not much is known about the land and hill Cumorah. 

To the contrary, quite a bit is known about the land and hill Cumorah. Lucy Mack Smith explained that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah the first night he met Joseph Smith. She also quoted Joseph Smith referring to the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. 


Letter VII explains it is a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place there, and that the hill in New York was the site of the depository of Nephite records. Soon after he joined the Church, Heber C. Kimball visited the hill and observed the embankments that have since been plowed under. Joseph, Oliver and others visited the repository in the hill. Their contemporaries and successors reaffirmed this fact many times.

The only Book of Mormon authors to discuss the location were Mormon and Moroni. 

Plus Ether. We know from Ether 15 that Coriantumr’s army pitched their tents by the hill, and that the final Jaredite war took place there, consisting of a few thousand followers of Coriantumr vs. a few thousand followers of Shiz. Extrapolating backward from the numbers Ether gave us, the total number of combatants was apparently fewer than 10,000, which corroborates Letter VII. 

Based on a statement given by Mormon, the land of Cumorah was “a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Mormon 6:4). 

This is consistent with western New York, as I discussed here:
http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2018/01/getting-real-about-cumorah-part-3-many.html

Other geographical clues given in the Book of Mormon appear to situate Cumorah north of the narrow neck of land and near an eastern seacoast (cf. Mormon 2:3, 20, 29; Ether 9:3).1 

You can read these verses yourself and see they don’t say what is claimed here. Mormon 2 doesn’t even refer to the “narrow neck of land.” That was a Jaredite term, found only in Ether 10:20. Mormon 2:29 refers to a “narrow passage.” Conflating these different terms is one of the major logical fallacies behind M2C, along with the M2C assumption that the “land northward” is a proper noun instead of a relative term. Ether 9:3 says Ablom, not Cumorah, was by the seashore. 

The hill itself was tall enough that it could be used as a strategic defensive position as well as an observation point for surveillance of the surrounding countryside (Mormon 6:2, 7, 11).

Nothing in the text suggests it was exceptional height that made Cumorah a strategic defensive position; after all, it was a hill, not a mountain. The question is how tall is “tall enough.” The New York hill is the tallest in the area; from the top even today, people can see the buildings in Rochester 20 miles away.


It’s also possible that Mormon chose the hill because he knew Coriantumr had constructed a fortress there. Maybe the embankments that Heber C. Kimball observed were originally constructed by the Jaredites, so Mormon could use or rebuild those. It’s true that Mormon could see 20,000 of his dead people from the top, and presumably an equivalent number of Lamanites. The valley west of Cumorah can easily accommodate this many people. Thousands of visitors attend the pageant every year. Audiences of 5,000, including all their cars and buses and concession stands, don’t fill even the area between the hill and the highway.
_____

Now, let’s turn to the sophistry.

There is “no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill ‘Cumorah’ in 1823” during his first encounter with the Prophet Joseph Smith. 

As we saw above, we can all read for ourselves that Lucy Mack Smith explained how Moroni referred to the “hill of Cumorah” the first night he met Joseph in 1823, and that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah in 1827, before he obtained the plates (about two years before he translated the books of Mormon, Ether and Moroni). The No-wise simply ignores this historical evidence and thereby keeps its readers ignorant.

The name Cumorah came into “common circulation [amongst Latter-day Saints] no earlier than the mid-1830s.”2 The first documented person to identify the drumlin hill3 in Manchester, New York where Joseph Smith received the plates with the hill Cumorah appears to have been William W. Phelps in 1833.4

Notice the sophistry here. No-wise #489 wants you to think Cumorah is not in New York because this 1833 publication is “late” and was published by Phelps.

The question is not when the name Cumorah was first published, but but when it was first known (which as we just saw was before Joseph even got the plates, and we’ll discuss this more below). The No-wise is trying to get you to think past the sale; i.e., it wants you to think “common circulation” is relevant, when “common circulation” is actually nothing more than a function of when members of the Church were able to publish a newspaper.

The term “common circulation” means something published. The first Church newspaper was The Evening and the Morning Star, published in Missouri by W.W. Phelps starting in June 1832. 

Not surprisingly, Phelps didn’t publish everything in the first issue. He covered a variety of topics, including the Ten Tribes and the Resurrection, in the first issues. He also published the early revelations that were later published in the Book of Commandments and today’s D&C.

Issue #8, January 1833, focused on the Book of Mormon. He published this:

But before the glorious and happy results of this book are set forth, it seems necessary to go back to the time it was brought forth. In the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven, the plates came forth from the hill Cumorah, which is in the county of Ontario, and state of New-York, by the power of God.

You can read this yourself here:

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v1n08.htm

IOW, the very first LDS publication declared that Cumorah was in New York in its eighth issue. If Phelps had published it in the first issue, would that have made a difference? If he had waited until the 10th or 12th issue to focus on the Book of Mormon, would that have made a difference?

In this No-wise, BMC wants you to believe that Phelps unilaterally invented the New York Cumorah in 1833.

A more realistic way to consider this evidence is that the New York Cumorah was so well known among those who knew Joseph and Oliver that there was no urgency in announcing it sooner. Why? 

Notice that Phelps doesn’t make a big deal about the New York Cumorah. He published it as a fact, not as speculation. He explains where Cumorah is, but doesn’t feel any need to justify the name or explain why he calls it Cumorah. When you read the statement in context, you see that he is reporting to the world facts that were already well known to the Saints.

For example, David Whitmer recalled the exact moment when he first heard the word “Cumorah.” It was in early June 1829, when he was bringing Joseph and Oliver from Harmony to Fayette. Along the road, the group met the divine messenger who had the abridged plates. David asked him if he’d like a ride to Fayette, but he declined, saying he was going to Cumorah. 
Phelps’s identification was later followed by Oliver Cowdery in 1835.5 

This is beautiful sophistry. 

Remember, BMC wants you to believe that Phelps invented the New York Cumorah. Here, they suggest that Oliver Cowdery merely copied Phelps’ lead. 

You have to go to the footnotes to see that the reference is to Letter VII. Then they give you a link to BMC’s own site, not to an original source (such as the Joseph Smith Papers). This allows BMC to editorialize through their “More Like This” to link to M2C-oriented material. 

This misleading link allows BMC to obscure the fact that Joseph had his scribes copy Letter VII into his own history, and that Joseph encouraged others to republish Letter VII, as we’ll see next.


We can all read Letter VII for ourselves, right in Joseph own journal:

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

Probably due to the popularity and influence of these two early leaders’ writings, the identification of the hill in New York as same the hill Cumorah mentioned by Mormon in Book of Mormon became commonplace amongst early Latter-day Saints.6

Here, No-wise #489 glosses over a key fact that perceptive readers have surely already noticed. First, though, notice what they’re trying to establish here. According to BMC, the only reason people believed Cumorah was in New York is because a couple of obscure articles from 1833 and 1835 became “popular.” 

BMC doesn’t tell you that Phelps’ article was so “popular” that it was never reprinted and had limited circulation in the first place. Instead, they try to persuade you that it “influenced” Oliver Cowdery.

So then we ask, why were Oliver’s letters, including Letter VII, popular?

Here are some reasons that BMC will never tell you. In fact, they removed from their archive a little book that explained all of this and instead issued another no-wise that tries to persuade Church members to disbelieve Letter VII.

Letter VII was popular and well-known because:

1. Joseph Smith helped write the letters.
2. Oliver was the Assistant President of the Church when he wrote and published Letter VII. The entire First Presidency endorsed the letters, as did every member of the Twelve who ever commented on them (through the present day).
3. Joseph had his scribes copy the letters, including Letter VII, into his personal history, where you can read it today in the Joseph Smith Papers. See link here: http://www.lettervii.com/
4. Joseph authorized Benjamin Winchester to reprint the letters in the Gospel Reflector newspaper.
5. Joseph gave the letters to his brother Don Carlos to reprint in the Times and Seasons.
6. Joseph’s brother William reprinted them in the New York City newspaper called The Prophet.
7. Parley P. Pratt reprinted them in the Millennial Star.
8. The letters were so popular in England that, in response to popular demand, they were compiled into a special pamphlet that sold thousands of copies.

As far as can be determined, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself only associated the hill in New York with the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon towards the end of his life.

This is outstanding sophistry and misdirection.

By using the passive voice–“as far as can be determined”–the anonymous author conveys the false message that no one can find anything to the contrary. 

Earlier in this post I pointed out the well-known statements from Lucy Mack Smith, where she relates what Moroni said in 1823 and specifically quotes Joseph referring to the hill as Cumorah in 1827 before he even got the plates. (We’ll see how BMC deals with that in a moment.) 

Notice also the term “himself” in this sentence. That’s there because Joseph expressly helped Oliver write the historical letters, including Letter VII. It’s also there to exclude statements from everyone else, as we’ll see.

The No-wise next mentions D&C 128:20, Joseph’s 1842 letter that refers to Cumorah. But then it tells us this:

Before then, Joseph left the name of the New York hill where Moroni gave him the plates unnamed in his accounts of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.8 

I discussed this here:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-hill-in-new-york-problem.html 

Now, notice this sentence:

Whether the Prophet arrived at this conclusion about the location of Cumorah by revelation, or by conforming to usage that had become common among the early members of the Church about Book of Mormon geography, or in some other way is historically unknown.9

Do you see how the No-wise is salting the earth here? BMC wants members of the Church to believe that Joseph Smith misled the Church by “conforming” to a false “usage” created by unknown early members of the Church.

That assertion by M2C intellectuals is the first step toward their eventual repudiation of all the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. 


They actually expect you to believe that Joseph Smith adopted and endorsed a false tradition, and that this false tradition is now canonized in D&C 128.

Plus, as we’ve seen, it’s not “historically unknown” that Joseph learned the name Cumorah before he even obtained the plates. Furthermore, David Whitmer learned the name Cumorah for the heavenly messenger who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. 

But wait. It gets worse.

In the decades after Joseph Smith’s death, other prominent early Latter-day Saints, including Lucy Mack Smith,10 Parley P. Pratt,11 and David Whitmer,12 recounted earlier incidents in which the New York hill was identified as Cumorah by the angel Moroni and by Joseph Smith. Since these statements are somewhat late recollections, coming after the identity of Cumorah as a hill near Palmyra, New York, had become widespread, they should be used cautiously.13

Here, BMC wants you to believe that Lucy, Parley, and David all lied about the New York Cumorah, and thereby, like Joseph, misled the Church. 

Furthermore, BMC wants you to believe that all subsequent prophets and apostles who have ever addressed the topic likewise misled the Church. 


Think of the implications. We rely on Lucy Mack Smith’s account as the primary source of information about Joseph’s life before the Church was organized in 1830. The Saints book, the Joseph Smith Papers, and innumerable books and articles about Joseph Smith rely on her account not only because it’s the primary source, but because she was his mother and she included specific details. While it’s true that she dictated her history only after Joseph died in 1844, she explained that she did so because she had related this history many times and could not continue doing so forever. 

Ironically, the same scholars who reject Lucy’s account because it’s “late” eagerly accept much later accounts from David Whitmer, Emma Smith, and others, including accounts from the 1870s and 1880s. When Lucy dictated her history in 1844, Joseph’s contemporaries were present in Nauvoo and could have provided corrections if any were needed. Plus, Lucy’s explanation of Cumorah is the most parsimonious explanation, meaning it explains the facts better than the murky conspiracy theories of those scholars who reject the New York Cumorah.

The rest of the No-wise is a rehash of old material, and I’ve responded to all of it in detail. But I need to comment on two more passages.

However, most Church leaders have simply and accurately said that the geography of the Book of Mormon is not revealed.17 


The argument is two-fold. First, it conflates the location of Cumorah with Book of Mormon geography generally. But the prophets have always made two things clear: (i) Cumorah is in New York and (ii) we don’t know where the other events took place. 

This position is the only viable position to take because there are hundreds of possible Book of Mormon sites. But there is only one Cumorah, and the prophets have explained unambiguously and continuously that it is in New York.

The M2Cers cleverly conflate the two points to cast a shadow of confusion about Cumorah. It’s blatant sophistry, but they get away with it because people don’t know the history and don’t think critically.

The second part of the argument is Note 17, one of my favorites. It consists of an obscure, out-of-context quotation by Harold B. Lee that is currently being used by people in the Correlation Department to screen out any material that contradicts M2C. It’s also a favorite of FAIRLDS. 

I’ve addressed it before here:

and here

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/02/cumorah-and-presidents-lee-and-kimball.html

Notice how the No-wise quotes the misleading excerpt from Elder Lee’s 1966 comment, but they don’t quote from President Marion G. Romney’s 1975 General Conference address. They don’t expect you to look that up. They also don’t cite the other prophets who have corroborated the New York Cumorah. 

Their audacity knows no bounds.

In reality, every Church leader who has addressed the topic has affirmed the New York Cumorah. They have also affirmed the equally consistent and persistent teaching that we don’t know for sure where the other events took place. This has been the case from the early days of the Church through the present, but BMC and the rest of the M2C citation cartel constantly try to conflate the two separate issues to confuse and mislead members of the Church.

Additionally, several Latterday Saint scholars have questioned whether the hill in New York could feasibly be the hill Cumorah described in the Book of Mormon. 

Here is the inevitable appeal to authority–the authority of the M2C scholars. They want you to believe the scholars, not the prophets. They follow this with a long paragraph about how the prophets couldn’t possibly be right, complete with a citation to the M2C Bible, Mormon’s Codex, which declares that the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah are “manifestly absurd.”

Latter-day Saints need to ask themselves if they agree that the teachings of the prophets are “manifestly absurd.” If so, they should embrace M2C. If not, they should

_____

When we read polemical and agenda-drive No-wise such as #489, we are reminded of Orwell’s NEWSPEAK and old Soviet Pravda articles. This no-wise is pure censorship, dressed up to look as if it is balanced or neutral. You have to read it carefully to detect what’s going on, but the message is clear.

Book of Mormon Central simply doesn’t want you to know what the prophets have taught. 

They want you to believe the scholars, who, according to the M2C intellectuals, have been hired by the prophets to guide the Church.

I write all of this with the greatest respect and kind feelings toward the M2C intellectuals, their followers and their victims. I have no personal animosity toward any of them. I think they’re all great people, faithful members of the Church, etc. I just wish they would at least inform members of the Church about all the facts and let us make informed decisions instead of engaging in this sophistry designed to persuade us to believe the scholars instead of the prophets.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

1+ million page views, the FAITH model, and new format for 2022

Me studying on the Isle of Patmos, Greece

A while back someone asked me how many people read my blogs. I checked the statistics a week ago. As of Dec 20, 2021, I’ve had this many page views: 1,020,855. 

That’s only on blogger. Most people read my posts on moronisamerica.com, on my Amazon page, or in other places that repost or quote from my posts.

I can’t break out how many separate viewers there are. I don’t know if that’s a lot or a few, relatively speaking. But it’s a milestone that has prompted a new approach.

I will continue to use blogs as my online note system that I can access from anywhere on any device, and I’m fine with people reading along. I’m happy to respond when readers write with questions; often those questions prompt another blog post. 

But there are even better ways to encourage people to become engaged learners. 

As readers here know, I’ve also written several books. Some of my presentations are online as well.

Despite my efforts to be clear about my ideas, perspectives, and intentions, however, there are critics out there who continue to misrepresent what I think and express. Ever since I first got involved with issues of Church history and Book of Mormon historicity, I’ve been surprised at the intransigence of many LDS scholars, intellectuals and historians. They have a rigid “not invented here” approach that, in my view, has led them to create what I call the M2C/SITH citation cartel that has done much to uneducate and miseducate the Latter-day Saints generally–especially those who don’t read English and therefore cannot access historical documents themselves.

An unfortunate example is the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP). As a resource, JSP is phenomenal. JSP cannot be praised enough for the incredible work they’ve accomplished in assembling and presenting historical documents and related information. 

However, their editorial comments are permeated with efforts to accommodate M2C, SITH, and other personal opinions. It is unfortunate, and completely unnecessary. The same biases have seeped into curriculum, including CES and BYU. 

In my view, Latter-day Saints who seek to be “engaged learners” embrace good information but do not defer to the opinions and rhetoric of the agenda-driven intellectuals. Predictably, many of these intellectuals take offense or feel threatened at the idea that ordinary people can make their own informed decisions that differ from the consensus of the scholars.

Some people claim that I’m trying to persuade people. That’s a red herring fallacy because I merely report and encourage people to learn and think for themselves. 

Here’s what I’m interested in: 

(1) accumulating and presenting relevant facts from history, archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography, etc.; 

(2) assessing those facts for credibility, reliability, context, etc.;

(3) explaining how I interpret these facts; 

(4) explaining why I agree or disagree with alternative interpretations.

I’m perfectly happy to have people disagree with me. I enjoy rechecking my work frequently, and I’ve adjusted my thinking many times as I gain new information or learn a better interpretation, hypothesis, etc. I will continue to do so, and encourage everyone to do the same.

I don’t understand the psychology that I see so often whereby people are threatened or become angry because someone has a different interpretation of the same facts, but I do understand why people feel threatened or angry when someone points out their factual or logical errors.

In January I’ll post my FAITH model for historical analysis and my new format for 2022.

Meanwhile, Happy New Year!

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Year-end questions: SITH and M2C

“It’s impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” – Epictetus

_____

Lucy Mack Smith explained how, as Joseph and Oliver neared the end of the translation in Harmony, Joseph applied the Urim and Thummim to his eyes to look on the record. If this is new to you, ask yourself why your sources haven’t told you.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/100

Oliver Cowdery explained it is a fact that the hill Cumorah in New York is the very hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. If this is new to you, ask yourself why your sources haven’t told you.

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

_____

Questions to ponder, from an investment blog: https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/i-have-a-few-questions/

Some interesting questions that will help us develop an open mind.

Who has the right answers but I ignore because they’re not articulate?

What haven’t I experienced firsthand that leaves me naive to how something works? As Jeff Immelt said, “Every job looks easy when you’re not the one doing it.”

Which of my current views would I disagree with if I were born in a different country or generation?

What do I desperately want to be true, so much that I think it’s true when it’s clearly not?

What is a problem that I think only applies to other countries/industries/careers that will eventually hit me?

What do I think is true but is actually just good marketing?

What looks unsustainable but is actually a new trend we haven’t accepted yet?

What has been true for decades that will stop working, but will drag along stubborn adherents because it had such a long track record of success?

Who do I think is smart but is actually full of it?

What do I ignore because it’s too painful to accept?

How would my views change if I had 10,000 years of good, apples-to-apples data on things I only have recent history to study?

Which of my current views would change if my incentives were different?

What are we ignoring today that will seem shockingly obvious in a year?

What events very nearly happened that would have fundamentally changed the world I know if they had occurred?

How much have things outside of my control contributed to things I take credit for?

How do I know if I’m being patient (a skill) or stubborn (a flaw)? They’re hard to tell apart without hindsight.

Who do I look up to that is secretly miserable?

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Changing one’s mind

The end of the year is a traditional time to review things, take inventory, make resolutions, etc. 

If you (or someone you know) still believe and advocate M2C, take a moment to consider this: you don’t have to accept M2C to be a faithful Latter-day Saint.

The great Russian author Leo Tolstoy observed, “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

_____

We’re past due for a major reframing of Book of Mormon historicity/geography. 

The prevailing Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs (M2C) theory is based on a mistake in Church history. It requires elaborate, complicated rationalization, a key component of which is that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah. Yet, as Tolstoy explained, the credentialed class of LDS intellectuals largely adheres to M2C–except the many who, having spotted the fallacies of M2C, no longer believe the Book of Mormon is an actual history.

There is a third option. It took me a while to learn about it.

Because people often ask how and why I embraced the “Heartland” framework that reconciles Church history, the teachings of the prophets, and Book of Mormon historicity/geography, here’s a brief explanation.

_____ 

For decades, I believed what my BYU teachers taught about Book of Mormon geography in Mesoamerica. I read the FARMS materials, attended conferences, accepted the two-Cumorahs theory and all the rest. The citation cartel was convincing because of their status as BYU faculty, their credentials, their conviction, their devotion, and their unanimity and consensus. I deferred to their expertise to the point that I didn’t recognize the logical and factual fallacies that M2C is based on. 

A few years ago, I learned new information, both about Church history (Letter VII, etc.) and about the ancient inhabitants of North America. It became apparent that the extrinsic evidence corroborates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah and related issues. It all makes sense. 

With the Heartland framework, there’s no need to put issues “on the shelf” or to characterize Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah, the translation of the plates, etc.

And it’s all very simple.

Nevertheless, the citation cartel, particularly the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, and FAIRLDS, continues to double-down on M2C. They persist in repudiating the prophets and promoting M2C by (i) censoring information that contradicts M2C, (ii) asserting their credentials and expertise to obscure their logical and factual fallacies, and (iii) spreading disinformation about alternative faithful interpretations of Church history and the Book of Mormon, particularly the “Heartland” scenario.

The “Heartland” explanation

You can find more information at https://www.mobom.org/, the Museum of the Book of Mormon, which is a nonprofit organization that offers a variety of perspectives.
_____

Ed Latimore

@EdLatimore

You’re allowed to change your mind. In fact, if you don’t, you’re probably not living enough to learn. But some of you get so ego invested in your position of ignorance that you’d rather be wrong than admit you were wrong.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Opinions

“When God wants to test you, He sends a person of good character who shares none of your opinions.  

When God wants to punish you, He sends a person of bad character who shares all of your opinions.”  

Aaron Haspel

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus