Apparently Oliver didn’t get the memo that he and Joseph were wrong about the Urim and Thummim because we now “know” that Joseph didn’t actually use the Urim and Thummim. Instead, he just stared at this stone in the hat (SITH) and didn’t use the plates.

Either that, or Oliver just forgot to mention the stone in his pocket because he knew Joseph didn’t use it to translated the plates.

When Cowdery returned to Church membership in 1848 he spoke to an Iowa conference. His words there were recorded by Reuben Miller: “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters. I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true. … I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

Source: About Central America

This week’s Come Follow Me lesson focuses on D&C 30-36. Sections 30 and 32 discuss the Mission to the Lamanites.

The demographics of Latin America show that, apart from the indigenous populations (Amerindians) whose ancestry is north Asian (mtDNA Haplogroups A, B, C, and D), the ancestors of most of the population originated in Europe. It was the incongruence between the DNA evidence and Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model (Lamanites are the ancestors of all the Latin Americans) that caused such confusion and led to rewording the Introduction to the Book of Mormon from “principal ancestors” to “among the ancestors” of the American Indians. Introduction (churchofjesuschrist.org)

As we saw at the beginning of this post, people will confirm their biases no matter what the facts are. We have M2C scholars who claim the Book of Mormon took place entirely in a limited geography of Mesoamerica, yet who also claim the descendants of Lehi are found throughout Latin America. It’s unclear why they designate Latin America to the exclusion of North America, but maybe this is merely the legacy of Orson Pratt living on.

Source: About Central America

Yesterday, I posed the question, “Who is the greatest student of the Book of Mormon?”

The answer: L.E. Hills.

_____ 

Here is the quotation with the name filled in.

Brother Hills is a student of the Book of Mormon, the greatest I have ever met, and his contribution to the geography of that book will be handed down to generations unborn as one of the grandest discoveries of the age.

Reference: Daniel MacGregor, “Book of Mormon Geography,” The Saints’ Herald, volume 68, 1921, p. 811. (See image at the end of this post.)

http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100235.pdf

Here we are, 100 years later, and we see that MacGregor’s praise of Brother Hills was prophetic. 

If it hasn’t already happened, soon enough every Latter-day Saint’s understanding of the Book of Mormon will be directly influenced by L.E. Hills.

_____

Many people don’t know L.E. Hills. 

It was Brother L.E. Hills who, in 1917, first published a map depicting the “two Cumorahs” theory that LDS scholars later popularized (see maps below).

(And yes, the simulation cleverly delivered the perfect last name for the originator of “two hills Cumorah” which we now call M2C for the “Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.)

The praise for Hills was prescient in the sense that yes, “generations unborn” did inherit M2C. Some think M2C is not just “one of the grandest discoveries of the age,” but the grandest discovery about the Book of Mormon.

Take another look at the quotation.

Brother Hills is a student of the Book of Mormon, the greatest I have ever met, and his contribution to the geography of that book [M2C map] will be handed down to generations unborn [including LDS students taught by CES and BYU] as one of the grandest discoveries of the age. [M2C is the unifying “consensus” among LDS scholars, the foundation for the M2C citation cartel, the underlying assumption that drives the interpretation of the Book of Mormon by LDS scholars, and the basis for depictions of the Book of Mormon in academic, artistic and media presentations.]

Except it’s not really a discovery.

It’s an disastrous repudiation of the teachings of the prophets.

Relying on Hills’ map, LDS M2C scholars have “discovered” that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, their contemporaries and their successors were speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah by expressing their ignorant, incorrect private opinions. 

M2C scholars have “discovered” that Joseph didn’t accurately translate the plates because he forgot to include descriptions of and references to Mayan culture and settings, such as jaguars, jungles, and jade. Once  

The Hills M2C map has become the basic assumption for Book of Mormon Central and the rest of the M2C citation cartel. It is the basis for the M2C fantasy maps that CES and BYU use to teach the Book of Mormon to Latter-day Saint students around the world.

Because today is April 1, it’s a good day to discuss a hoax–the M2C hoax.* 

_____

Below is the map Hills published in 1917. Notice the placement of Cumorah far from New York.

You’ll notice that there are slight differences, such as the specific location of Cumorah in Mexico. The M2C believers continue to debate which river in Mesoamerica is the Sidon, etc. 

But they all agree with Hills that the “real Cumorah” is in southern Mexico and that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah.

Below are the BYU and CES maps that teach M2C to Latter-day Saint students around the world. You can see how they rotated the Mesoamerican maps 90 degrees and put Cumorah in the same area that Hills and Sorenson did, near the “narrow neck of land” by the “sea east.” Both maps teach unambiguously that Cumorah is not in New York. Modern LDS students are never told what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah.

The BYU and CES maps have the additional feature of framing the Book of Mormon as taking place in a fantasy land. Is it any surprise that most LDS Millennials no longer believe the Book of Mormon is an actual history?

The Maxwell Institute has its own fantasy version of the Hills/Sorenson map, which you can see here:

https://byumiuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/02/MISE-BOM-MAP.pdf

Truly, Hills “contribution to the geography of that book [has been and is being] handed down to generations unborn as one of the grandest discoveries of the age.”

_____

We should clarify that we don’t blame Hills for anything. He was a great student of the Book of Mormon. I’ve discussed why he did what he did in my book, Between these Hills. We don’t question his faith, devotion, sincerity, motivations, etc. He was undoubtedly awesome and exemplary. And, to his credit, he helped focus attention on the historicity issues. 

But it’s useful to compare the way our modern LDS scholars have enthusiastically embraced Hills’ M2C theory against the way the RLDS and LDS churches responded to that theory.

The Saints’ Herald was a publication of the RLDS Church. Elder L.E. Hills was an Elder of that Church. 

Later that year, the RLDS First Presidency published a “Notice” in The Saints’ Herald.

Inasmuch as numerous reports and inquiries have reached this office touching the recent activities of Elder L.E. Hills in lecturing on Book of Mormon geography and traditional history, we take this opportunity to inform the Saints who are interested in this matter. Brother Hills is not under church appointment as a general representative or missionary; neither is he acting under appointment from the Presidency in this matter, as rumor which has come to us has it. So far as the general church is concerned, he is carrying on his work mentioned above entirely on his own initiative. 

“Notice,” The Saints Herald, December 13, 1921, online at http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100235.pdf , page 1199.

A few years later, the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah in New York. In General Conference, President Ivins of the First Presidency discussed the acquisition, explaining that this was the actual Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. The following year, President Ivins clarified that we don’t know the location of other Book of Mormon events, which makes sense because there are hundreds of archaeological sites that could qualify as Book of Mormon locations.

M2C nevertheless persisted. 

In the 1930s, Church Historian and Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith warned that the idea of Cumorah in Mexico would cause members of the Church to “become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon.” He repeated that warning when, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, he published Doctrines of Salvation.

President Smith’s warning has proven to be as prescient as MacGregor’s prediction about the influence of L.E. Hills.

_____

*I’ve discussed this hoax before:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/04/time-to-expose-m2c-hoax.html

BTW, the origin of April Fool’s Day is worth reviewing: 

https://www.history.com/topics/holidays/april-fools-day.

_____

Source: About Central America

The Lord explained that one reason for the restoration was “That faith also might increase in the earth.” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:21)

Yesterday, Gallup released a poll under this headline:

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

The charts accompanying the article show the downward trends, which seem to show the opposite of an increase in faith in the earth. 

(click to enlarge):

It’s obvious that younger generations are disaffiliating with churches.

Similar trends are apparent among LDS.

Recently, Patrick Mason gave a fireside in Logan during which he discussed these trends. He pointed out that retention rates among LDS Millennials is below 50%.

He explained some of the reasons why people are “switched off” from Church activity, including the Gospel Topics essays.

He also discussed the data from The Next Mormons, which I’ve discussed previously on this blog. 

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/03/the-next-mormons-by-jana-riess.html

The data indicates that younger LDS are less likely to believe fundamental doctrines. 

For example, only half of LDS millennials are confident that the Book of Mormon is a literal, historical account. Given the way BYU and CES teach the Book of Mormon with a fantasy map, it’s actually surprising that even half of them believe it’s a real history. 

_____

Some people think this blog focuses on Book of Mormon geography, but that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about the intersection of faith, history, science, and psychology. 

Of course, we can each believe whatever we want, and we can interpret the scriptures and Church history to confirm whatever beliefs we choose. I write about M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) here because, while for some people M2C may build faith, for others it undermines faith. 

As I’ve explained many times, I write this blog for those who, like me, have changed our minds about M2C after having been indoctrinated by the M2C scholars who dominate BYU and CES. Once we learned what Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries actually taught about Cumorah, we saw things in a new light. Our confidence in their credibility and reliability increased.

Long ago Joseph Fielding Smith warned that the idea that Cumorah is in Mesoamerica instead of in New York would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. That should be obvious, because to reject the New York Cumorah in favor of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory), you have to cast doubt on the credibility of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, all their contemporaries, and all their successors who have ever discussed the topic.

Related to that, the interpretation of the text and its historicity are greatly influenced by the assumption we make about Cumorah. If we accept the New York Cumorah, then we can interpret the text consistently in light of relevant archaeology, anthropology, geology, geography, etc., all of which corroborates the teachings of the prophets.

If we reject the New York Cumorah, we can also confirm that bias by citing various sciences, but each step of the way we are rejecting the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah, chalking them up as the uninformed speculations of men expressing their own incorrect and uninspired opinions in General Conference. Instead, the modern M2C intellectuals have saved us from persisting in the ignorance of the prophets by adopting the M2C theory developed by an RLDS scholar in the early 1900s from whom even the RLDS First Presidency distanced themselves. 

Unmoored from the Cumorah anchor, anything goes. Now we’re told that Joseph didn’t use the plates or the Urim and Thummim. He didn’t even really translate anything; instead, he merely read words that appeared on a stone, or in a vision.

Maybe “faith will increase in the earth” as the missionaries teach people that Joseph didn’t really translate anything. More people will join the Church once they learn that when Joseph said he “translated” the plates, he really meant he didn’t use the plates but merely read words that appeared on a stone he put in a hat.

Maybe “faith will increase in the earth” as more people learn that the early Church members created, taught, and promulgated false speculation about the New York Cumorah, and that Church leaders for over 150 years continued to mislead members by repeating that speculation, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

Maybe “faith will increase in the earth” as the M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians continue to reframe the narratives that originated with Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and their contemporaries. 

So far, it doesn’t seem to be working out, though.

Maybe it is time to try corroborating the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah instead of repudiating those teachings?

Source: About Central America

This post is an example of my notes that I’m sharing because people ask these questions and now I can refer them to this blog.

I’ve mentioned before the “quirk” in the Joseph Smith Papers search engine that omits references to Cumorah. Other results are obscured by the formatting of the search results, which buries many of the results in a sublink. Consequently, you’ll miss the important references to Cumorah unless you know enough to dig a little deeper.

This is problematic because I still meet people who have no idea about these references to Cumorah, and if they go to the Joseph Smith Papers to search for them, they are difficult to find and/or not even present in the search results.

_____

Go to https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/.

In the search box, type “Cumorah,” with or without the quotation marks. You’ll get 18 results, depending on which types of documents you click on the right. (click to enlarge).

1.* Printer’s manuscript.

2. 1835 Hymns.

3. D&C 128. (Five versions, ##3, 6, 8, 11 and 12)

4. Zelph account.

5.* Book of Mormon 1837.

6.* Orson Pratt’s Interesting Account.

7.* Lucy Mack Smith, p. 1, bk 6 [click on link to get p. 11, bk. 3]

8.* History, 1834-1836, p. 101 (Letter VIII) [click on link to get 

9. Corrill, History of the Church.

10. Blessing from Oliver Cowdery.

11. Introduction to Documents.

12. Gold plates reference.

13. Manchester Township reference.

14. I Had Seen a Vision transcript.

* Results marked with (*) have reduced font sublinks that say “Show only results from this document.” 

I’m sure there is a legitimate reason for this structure, but it makes the search results incomplete and unwieldy, even misleading. 

Unless you know exactly where to look for what you’re looking for, you won’t get the important Cumorah references in the first-level results and you can’t tell which of these sublinks to click on to find them. Going through each of the sublinks takes a lot of time.

The sublink architecture omits from the first-level results both Letter VII and Lucy’s account of Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith in which Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah. The reader has to know which sublink to click on to find these references. 

Ordinary readers could easily conclude that these references to Cumorah don’t exist in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

It’s also interesting that while the Joseph Smith Papers often leads people to articles in the Times and Seasons, it omits Letter VII and the other Oliver Cowdery letters that were published in the Times and Seasons, even though Joseph helped write them and his brothers Don Carlos and William each republished them. That’s important context for the presence of these letters in Joseph’s own History, 1834-1836.

The republication of these letters by Don Carlos in the 1841 Times and Seasons (at Joseph’s direction), is especially significant to understanding the reference to Cumorah in Joseph’s 1842 letter first published in the Times and Seasons that later became D&C 128. In other words, D&C 128:20 did not appear randomly or in a vacuum. It alluded to the history that was well known to readers of the Times and Seasons because they had read Letter VII just the year before in the same newspaper. By omitting all of this context, the Joseph Smith Papers does a disservice to readers.

Plus, as we’ve seen, these search results still omit the important reference to Cumorah in Lucy Mack Smith’s 1845 history that was also inexplicably omitted from the Saints book, volume 1.

“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord;

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111

_____

Now, open a new tab and go to https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ again. This time, search for “Camorah,” with an “a” instead of a “u.” This is how it was spelled in the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition. You’ll get 4 results. 

1. Book of Mormon, 1830.

2. Printer’s Manuscript.

3. John Corrill, History of the Church (noting the hill was “anciently called Camorah”).

4. History, 1834-1836 (Letter VII).

You can see in the fourth item that the search engine hits on “Camorah” in Letter VII, but when you searched for Cumorah, it did not pick up “Cumorah” (circled in red below) in the first level results even though the words are on the same line. You only get this search result if you know enough to click on the sublink under History, 1834-1836, when you search for “Cumorah.”.

You can see this again by doing a search for “great struggle.” You’ll get two hits.

If you click on the first link, it takes you to the page in Joseph Smith’s history that relates the Zelph account.

Last Great Struggle

It’s interesting that the phrase “last great struggle” (as well as “great struggle”) appears in the Joseph Smith Papers in only two places: (i) the Zelph account from History, 1838-1856, based on an event during Zion’s Camp in 1834 and (ii) Letter VII, first published in the 1835 Messenger and Advocate in Kirtland. 

Oliver Cowdery did not accompany Joseph Smith and the rest of Zion’s Camp when they left Kirtland for Missouri in May, 1834. Oliver and Sidney Rigdon remained in Kirtland. 

Oliver said Joseph assisted him in writing the historical letters, which included Letter VII. Those who disbelieve the New York Cumorah say Joseph Smith did not assist Oliver in writing Letter VII. 

Can this unusual and distinctive phrase (“last great struggle”) tell us anything?

The Book of Mormon uses the term “struggle” four times (the only appearance of the term anywhere in the scriptures), but Mormon refers to the “last struggle,” not the “great struggle.” (Mormon 6:6) 

Although the Zelph account took place in 1834, History 1838-1856 was compiled starting in 1838; i.e., the history postdates the initial publication of Letter VII. The Zelph portion was compiled by Willard Richards, who started working on the project in 1842. The Historical Introduction to the history in the Joseph Smith Papers observes that “it remains difficult to distinguish JS’s own contributions from composition of his historian-scribes.”

None of the known journals that refer to the Zelph account use the phrase “last great struggle.” Heber C. Kimball wrote that Zelph “had been an officer who fell in battle in the last destruction among the Lamanites.” Moses Martin wrote that “we found those mounds to have been deposits for the dead which had fallen no doubt in some great Battles.” 

This leaves three possibilities.

1. Willard Richards could have composed the phrase based on his own interpretation of the events as reported in the journals (such as combining “last” from Heber C. Kimball, “great” from Moses Martin, and “struggle” from Mormon 6:6. In this case, the duplication of the phrase is merely a coincidence.

2. Willard Richards could have obtained the phrase from an oral account from a participant on Zion’s Camp, including from Joseph Smith directly. In this case, the phrase originated in 1834 from Joseph Smith and its appearance in Letter VII corroborates what Oliver said about Joseph assisting him with writing the letters. 

3. Willard Richards could have borrowed the phrase from Letter VII, which had been republished in the Times and Seasons in 1841 and was well known among Church members. This case corroborates the reliability and credibility of Letter VII.

It seems unlikely that Richards would have combined three sources to come up with a coincidental phrase. It also seems unlikely that Richards would have borrowed only this one phrase from Letter VII, although it could have been a subliminal borrowing.

Consequently, I lean toward possibility #2. Previous authors who have examined the Zelph accounts have sought to derive the Richards account by examining the known journals, but they acknowledge the possibility (which I consider a likelihood) that Richards also interviewed the people involved, including Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and Joseph Smith. It’s not clear that Richards quoted from the journals in the first place; if he interviewed the people involved, they may have referred to their journals in relating the event but used slightly different wording.

For example, Godfrey notes that Richards “introduced minor differences or discrepancies into the story” because he assumes Richards was “blending the sources available to him,” but such differences would naturally result from an oral recitation. 

Godfrey, https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/29.2Godfrey-003b0b7d-bf77-4d7e-ae80-8290e6730b87.pdf

Cannon also assumes that “The primary source material for the Zelph story comes from diaries kept by some members of Zion’s Camp.2 Six men wrote diary accounts concerning Zelph: Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, Levi Hancock, Moses Martin, and Reuben McBride.”

https://bookofmormonevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Zelph_Revisited_WORD_-Donald-Q.-Cannon_final.pdf

In my view, the evidence suggests that Richards relied on interviews with the participants on Zion’s Camp. The Joseph Smith Papers explain that “Aside from the material dictated or supplied by JS prior to his death, the texts for A-1 and for the history’s subsequent volumes were drawn from a variety of primary and secondary sources including JS’s diaries and letters, minutes of meetings, the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, church and other periodicals, reports of JS’s discourses, and the reminiscences and recollections of church members.” 

All of this suggests that Richards’ use of the phrase “last great struggle” originated with the participants on Zion’s camp, which corroborates Oliver’s claim that Joseph helped him write Letter VII.

One more consideration. As published in the Times and Seasons in 1846, this account reads “the last great struggle” instead of “a last great struggle.” 

This same difference appears on a second copy of the history, written by Wilmer Benson, known as Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1. However, the Benson version refers to Zelph as “a son of God,” while the Richards version refers to him as “a man of God,” the way it appears in the Times and Seasons. For whatever reason (possibly to conform to Letter VII?), it appears that the editor of the Times and Seasons in 1846 (not Willard Richards) changed the wording from “a last great struggle” to “the last great struggle.”

_____

Ancient inhabitants = Nephites and Lamanites

History, 1838-1856, originally read “During our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country, Nephites, Lamanites &c, and this morning I went up on a high mound…” 

Notice that the clause “Nephites, Lamanites &c” was crossed out at some point. 

However, when first published in the Times and Seasons in January 1846, the original version was intact.

Here’s a link to a .pdf facsimile of the original Times and Seasons (scroll to page 309). 

To the left is a screen capture of the original page.

(click to enlarge)

Those familiar with this subject know that our LDS scholars who teach M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) claim the Zelph account, to the extent it is credible at all, involved Nephites who lived “in the hinterlands” far from the center of Nephite activity in Mesoamerica. They resist the idea that Joseph identified the mounds in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois as having been thrown up by Nephites and Lamanites.

Look again at the page from JS History 1838-1856. 

About half way down, you’ll see the reference to Zelph and Onandagus. Depending on how you interpret the grammar, one of them “was known from the hill Cumorah, or eastern sea, to the Rocky Mountains.” That contradicts the “hinterlands” theory because Cumorah was anything but in the “hinterlands,” being the site of the final battles of both the Jaredites and the Nephites.

Thus, it’s no surprise that “hill Cumorah” is also lined out here, but the original version was also published in the Times and Seasons, as you can see from the facsimile. 

Important point: This is one of the references that does show up if you search for “Cumorah” in the Joseph Smith Papers. 

Second important point: the version of the Zelph account in this history was a compilation of multiple journal accounts (or personal recollections). Willard Richards worked on the history between 21 December 1842 and 27 March 1843. He apparently relied on Wilford Woodruff’s journal. Woodruff had written “inhabitants of this continent” and “probably by the Nephites and Lamanites.” Richards omitted “probably” when he wrote the history and that’s how it was published. Whether he did so in consultation with Joseph Smith is unknown.

_____

Now, go back to your search for “Cumorah” and look at the last two results. These are explanatory notes from the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers (click to enlarge). 

They refer to the place where the plates were buried as “what is now known as the Hill Cumorah.” 

The “now known as” language conveys the revisionist history that Joseph never called the hill Cumorah, that some unknown early Latter-day Saint misread the text of the Book of Mormon and speculated that the hill was the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6, and that there are really two Cumorahs, with the “real Cumorah” being somewhere in Mesoamerica (i.e., M2C).

Of course, anyone can read the original sources throughout the Joseph Smith Papers and see that it was Moroni himself who identified the hill as Cumorah during his first visit to Joseph Smith, that Joseph’s family knew the hill as Cumorah even before Joseph got the plates, that David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all referred to the hill as Cumorah (in David’s case, before he had read the book and before Joseph had translated the plates of Nephi in Fayette), etc. 

Except that, because of the search engine “glitch” in the Joseph Smith Papers, people can’t find these references if they search for them.

Source: Letter VII

The identification of Nahom has generated a lot of discussion pro and con, but in this video, Kent Brown explains the discovery and its implications. 

Source: About Central America

There’s a big difference between trying to persuade people, trying to educate people, and trying to change minds by arguing with them.

Readers here know that I frequently declare that as far as I’m concerned, people can believe whatever they want. I don’t want to persuade people because persuasion techniques can involve manipulating facts (especially by hiding or censoring unfavorable facts). Arguing with people is pointless because people naturally resist any effort to change their minds.

But people usually are eager to learn new things and make up their own minds.

That’s why my objective is to enable and empower people through education and rational analysis so they can make their own informed decisions.

It’s not a difficult distinction, but sometimes people who feel threatened by evidence that contradicts their beliefs conflate the concepts. 

For example, a while back a well-known LDS author/educator, former Mission President, etc., sent an email to his list claiming that I was lying to people when I said I wasn’t trying to persuade anyone of anything. I had brought up facts that contradicted what he had been teaching for his entire career. Two people on his list forwarded his email to me. I contacted him, and he apologized, but he didn’t send a follow-up to his list.

_____

I bring this up because I saw a nice article about the futility of arguing that readers here will enjoy. The author, a former professional boxer, makes some good points, although he unintentionally seems to justify a “closed-mind” approach to life, so I wouldn’t read the article uncritically. 

Still, there are some thoughtful insights worth considering.

It’s especially important to apply the concepts to ourselves. Are we the type of people for whom “the pain of ignorance is greater than the satisfaction of stubbornness,” so what we are eager to improve our lives by readily accepting new information in a positive context, or are we more intent on confirming our biases regardless?

In the gospel context, I think more information is always better than less information. This is especially true for Church history issues, as we’ve discussed many times.

https://edlatimore.com/how-to-stop-arguing/

Excerpt:

No matter how well-crafted your argument…

No matter how many points you make that can’t be refuted…

No matter how painfully obvious it is that your stance on the matter is, practically speaking, the correct one…

You will never convince someone who isn’t interested in being convinced.

Occasionally you may come across the rare individual who changes their mind in the face of new evidence, but these types of people go into a situation with an open mind and loosely held beliefs. Maybe calling their beliefs “loosely held” isn’t quite correct.

It’s more accurate to say that they realize they could be completely incorrect and for these people, the pain of ignorance is greater than the satisfaction of stubbornness.

The longer it takes you to realize that most people are never going to change their minds, the longer it will take you to thrive in this environment.

Until you get this, you will spend your days raging on the internet and debating in person over things that not only don’t matter, but even if they did, there’s nothing you can do about them and no prize you win for convincing the opposition otherwise.

The end.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus