Author: Jonathan Neville

I’m fine with people believing whatever they want. Belief is a choice.

But those Latter-day Saints who still believe what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah generally seem more confident, peaceful and happy about their decision than those who reject those teachings.

The M2Cers, judging by the way they talk and write about the New York Cumorah, are defensive about their claims. Some get angry at the mere mention of Letter VII and the other teachings compiled here.

They need to chill. 

We’re all on the same bus.

But the view on this side of the aisle is awesome.

Source: About Central America

In 1973, Michael Coe, a Yale expert on Mayan culture and archaeology, discussed M2C and spelled out the problems that still exist nearly 50 years later. Coe described two categories of Latter-day Saints: the “Iron Rods” who accept the Book of Mormon as an actual history set in Mesoamerica, and the “Liahonas” who “tend to view the Book of Mormon as a source of mores and guidance and for whom Book of Mormon archaeology would probably represent a waste of time and effort.” That is Coe’s euphemism for people who believe the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction, albeit inspired and devotional like a parable.

In 1973, Coe claimed the Liahonas “would seem to be concentrated in the liberal wing of the Salt Lake City Church.” Today, because of the “M2C or bust” approach of the most prominent LDS scholars and historians, Liahonas are increasingly common even among BYU/CES faculty and Church leaders. I have a friend who has been a Mission President twice while he didn’t believe the Book of Mormon is actual history. 

Understandably, Coe considered the Book of Mormon only in the context of M2C. Like our M2C citation cartel today, the idea that the prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah never entered the conversation. 

I posted an analysis of his article here: https://www.mobom.org/michael-coe-1973-annotated

_____

Excerpt (Coe’s original in blue, my comments in red):

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.

What Coe said in 1973 remains true as of 2021—at least with respect to Mesoamerica.

The archaeological data would strongly suggest that the Liahonas are right about the Book of Mormon. To me, as a sympathetic and interested outsider, the efforts of Iron Rod archaeologists to go beyond the moral and ethical content of the Book of Mormon arouse feelings not of superiority but of compassion: the same kind of compassion that one feels for persons who are engaged on quests that have been, are now, and always will be unproductive.

From Coe’s perspective, he is being empathetic, not condescending. From the perspective of those Latter-day Saints who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, however, there is more a sense of betrayal than of empathy for the LDS scholars who have rejected the teachings of the prophets and have taught their students for decades to do likewise.

What has gone wrong, therefore, with Mormon archaeology? Even the Soviets, wedded as they are to a nineteenth century doctrine of social and economic evolution, have not remained so far removed from the mainstream of archaeological and anthropological thought as the Iron Rod archaeologists. Mormon intellectuals, it seems to me, have taken three ways to extract themselves from the dilemma. The more traditionalist, such as my friend John Sorenson, have tried to steer their stern elders away from Book of Mormon archaeology on the grounds that not even the best and most advanced research has ever been able to establish on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the Bible, for instance the very existence of Jesus Christ. According to Sorenson, all one can hope to do is to “paint in the background,” which in his case has meant building up a convincing picture of trans-Atlantic diffusion by presenting New World-Old World parallels.[1]This is of interest to non-Mormon archaeologists, and Sorenson has done much to work out the methodology of such comparisons, but few non-believers have been swayed when faced with the indigestible cattle, horses, wheat, and so forth.

Sorenson’s work on diffusion has been helpful regardless of where in the western hemisphere one thinks the Nephites and Jaredites lived. But Coe (and Sorenson) set up a false comparison here. No one suggests, implies or even hopes that archaeology can establish the existence of any individual. But if there was no archaeological evidence of the Bible’s narrative—no known Jerusalem, no Sea of Galilee, etc.—few people would take the narrative seriously. The Bible has a real-world setting everyone can see, even if many biblical sites remain unknown and even the location of Sinai is subject to multiple working hypotheses. The real-world setting establishes the credibility of the text, lending plausibility to the narratives.

For the Book of Mormon, plausibility is no less essential. Joseph and Oliver left us the key of Cumorah, from which we can unlock both the interpretation of the text and a range of plausible settings. As with the Bible, we will likely never identify all the specifically named sites, which have been lost to history. But we can at least establish the credibility of the Book of Mormon as a real history, which in turn will lend plausibility to the narratives. As Joseph said, the archaeology in the midwestern United States is “proof of its divine authenticity.”

The second escape is to take a Liahona approach to the problem. This is obviously Green’s way, as it is that of several other Mormon archaeologists of my acquaintance. But then what does one do with the Book of Mormon itself? Even the most casual student will know that the LDS ethic is only slightly based upon the Book of Mormon, which has very little in it of either ethics or morals; rather, its ethic is heavily dependent upon such post-Book of Mormon documents as the Doctrine and Covenants.[2]And what does one do with Joseph Smith, great man though he was, with his outrageous claims to be able to translate “Reformed Egyptian” documents, with the ridiculous Kinderhook Plates incident, with the “Book of Abraham,” with Zelph the “white Lamanite,” and with all the other nonsense generated by a nineteenth century, American subculture intellectually grounded in white supremacy and proexpansionist tendencies?

Coe’s argument omits his underlying assumption that M2C is the only “approved” setting. Given M2C, the Liahona approach is the only viable faithful alternative. But M2C is only one of multiple working hypotheses, and because it rejects the New York Cumorah, it compounds the problem by undermining the teachings of the prophets.

Coe’s pejorative interpretation of the events he lists confirm his biases, but other interpretations of the same historical facts don’t support his biases. Evidence of 19^th century influences does not undermine Joseph’s claims; those influences corroborate Joseph’s claim that he translated the plates. Evidence of composition is also evidence of translation because translators necessarily uses their own lexicon and cultural understanding.  

The third way out of the dilemma is apostasy. I will not dwell further on this painful subject, but merely point out that many unusually gifted scholars whom I count as friends have taken exactly this route.

Coe put his finger on the problem. The “M2C or bust” approach of the M2C citation cartel, symbolized by Book of Mormon Central’s Mayan logo, leaves faithful Latter-day Saints with a stark choice.

M2C requires them to either

(i) believe the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah and that there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica apart from “correspondences” that are mostly common to all human societies,

Or

(ii) reject the Book of Mormon as an actual history.

Faced with this Hobson’s choice, apostasy has become an increasingly prevalent response.

And for outsiders investigating the Church, the dilemma posed by M2C is a nearly insurmountable impediment that obscures the larger message of the Restoration. This will always be the case so long as the Book of Mormon remains the keystone of our religion.

Unless and until LDS scholars recognize the alternative that the prophets were correct about Cumorah after all, and that there is extrinsic evidence to corroborate those teachings, Coe’s three alternatives will remain the only options most people will consider.

Source: About Central America

Some people wonder why I often annotate M2C and SITH articles in the form of a peer review. (I have an important new one on the origins of M2C that I’m going to post tomorrow.)

People also wonder why I often emphasize that I respect and personally like the scholars whose work I review, even when I disagree with their conclusions. There’s a big difference between accumulating facts and making them accessible, on one hand, and deriving conclusions on the other hand. There’s no reason to be angry or upset with people because of their conclusions and beliefs. We should all be happy to recognize multiple working hypotheses (MWH) based on established facts. MWH enables people to make informed decisions for themselves. 

My approach has to do with Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.

In 2008, Paul Graham suggested a framework for understanding disagreement. He pointed out that the Internet makes disagreement easier and ubiquitous. 

“If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages.”

People can be persuaded at any level of the pyramid, so long as it confirms their bias. We see this in political debates all the time. Name-calling is one of the most popular tactics. We almost never see a politician, pundit, or media source actually refute a central point. Their economic model requires them to be as divisive and misleading as possible to attract viewers and votes. Consensus and agreement is boring and unprofitable (but productive and beneficial for society).

Graham’s essay is worth reading as a useful way to categorize disagreements. Whenever you watch a video or read an article, blog post, book, etc., consider Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement.

A key point: “The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.”

His hierarchy has been portrayed graphically with the pyramid he suggested. 

(click to enlarge) adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

The easiest and most common form of disagreement is name-calling, while the most difficult and rarest is refuting the central point.

A criticism of Graham’s hierarchy is the absence of humor, but humor is merely a means of applying one of the levels.

Graham observes that “To refute someone you probably have to quote them…. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point…. Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.”

This is why I annotate or peer-review the actual words of the M2C and SITH advocates.

_____

With respect to Book of Mormon historicity and geography, the central point is the location of Cumorah, because Cumorah is the only known connection between the modern world and the world of the Book of Mormon. 

That’s why I focus on Cumorah, and why our M2C friends try to avoid the topic.

When people debate various interpretations of the text and the extrinsic evidence (geography, geology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) they are dealing with lower levels of the pyramid. Interpretations are inherently subjective and outcome-driven, while the extrinsic evidence can be explained to justify any interpretation one wants. People with different views often talk past one another, use word thinking (as if redefining a term is a legitimate argument), appeal to credentials, etc.

The core facts about the central point are not in dispute. 

Everyone can read Letter VII and the other original sources. We can all see that Oliver wrote that it is a fact that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York, that Joseph assisted Oliver in writing the essays, had them copied into his own journal, and encouraged/directed them to be republished widely during his lifetime. 

We can all see that Lucy Mack Smith explained it was Moroni himself who identified the hill as Cumorah the first time he met Joseph, that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates, that David Whitmer learned the name Cumorah from the messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony to Cumorah, and so on. 

We can all see that every prophet/apostle who has ever publicly addressed the topic has reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

And we can all see that our M2C scholars expressly repudiate these teachings.

It’s very simple and clear. And that’s fine; people can believe whatever they want. 

We can all see that the M2C rationale is driven by their own interpretation of the text. The M2C proponents insist the prophets were wrong because the M2C interpretation of the text puts the events in Mesoamerica, which they then say is too far from New York, so Cumorah cannot be in New York. They claim that the hill in New York was either named “Cumorah” in honor of the real Cumorah in Mexico, or was named “Cumorah” through a false tradition started by one of Joseph’s contemporaries, a false tradition that Joseph simply adopted.

When the M2C scholars, their followers and donors, discuss their interpretations of the text, the correspondences with Mayan culture and geography, etc., they are well down the pyramid.    

Only when the M2C proponents specifically declare that the prophets were wrong–that the prophets were merely ignorant speculators who misled the Church with their erroneous personal opinions–are the M2C advocates addressing the central point.

And when they make their argument clear, Latter-day Saints can make an informed decisions about what they choose to believe. 

Source: About Central America

There are lots of great web pages to use to supplement our study of Church history and the Book of Mormon. Here are some I use all the time.

Source: About Central America

The November MOBOM newsletter went out on last week. (If you didn’t see it, check your “promotions” email on gmail. Send any questions to mobominfo@gmail.com.)

The newsletter included a link to the Youtube channel “Mormon Book Reviews,” in which evangelical Steven Pynakker interviews a variety of interesting people who have “multiple working hypotheses” on several topics related to the Book of Mormon. 

This is the type of project that can lead to harmonious understanding of one another. Steven is building bridges among groups that rarely communicated with one another. These are the conversations that foster harmony and unity.

Unlike many hosts of youtube channels that discuss the Book of Mormon, Steven is not pushing an agenda other than letting people explain their beliefs.

Sample interviews:

Richard Bushman – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pm-1GiOBUg&t=215s

Rod Meldrum on DNA – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wxhLJj4KM

Jonathan Neville on Jonathan Edwards – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZ2J2lsksk&t=5s

Don Bradley on the lost 116 pages – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1smM8sRMCRU

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

 More good advice:

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus