Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

FAIRLDS and credibility

Our friends at FairMormon have changed their organization’s name to FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response) and their website to https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ 

They’ve also removed the bizarre “apologetic” videos they posted a few months ago.

Scott Gordon explained their new objective: 

“We are fact checkers and clarifiers. We want to provide fact checking and clear explanations that all parties can trust. We fully understand that not everyone will like our conclusions as we are believing members of the church. However, we want everyone to be able to trust our review of the facts. This means avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language.”

This is a welcome change–maybe.

One big problem with FAIR remains evident in Scott’s statements. He refers to “our conclusions.” That’s the opposite of being “fact checkers and clarifiers.”

There are lots of self-proclaimed “fact checkers” in the media, both right and left, that use “fact-checking” as a ruse to promote partisan agendas. That has long been the case at FAIR. If FAIR continues to promote only one of a variety of faithful approaches to the issues, it will remain problematic even if it drops the personal attacks. 

FAIR has a long history of resorting to logical fallacies, including ad hominem attacks, that undermined their apologetics. That was understandable, given the similar approach taken by FARMS and its successors (and the M2C citation cartel as a whole), but this change in editorial policy could be significant. 

Now let’s see if they live up to their commitment. 

We will see if FAIR’s new direction is window dressing or substantive by whether they invite a more diverse group of faithful contributors.

A big problem with FAIR and the rest of the M2C citation cartel is the way they accept as a given some of the same assumptions relied upon by MormonStories, CES Letter, etc. Reconsidering those assumptions, rather than debating with critics about the implications of those assumptions, would be far more productive.

Ideally, they would adopt an approach of multiple working hypotheses that recognize the full spectrum of faithful explanations. So far, they’ve consistently refused to do so, just as Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, BYU Studies, and other members of the M2C citation cartel have refused to do.

For example, look at the FAIR explanation for the Hill Cumorah. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Hill_Cumorah

While there are helpful resources there, it is mingled with a collection of misinformation, deflection, and interpretations framed as facts. The entire article is designed to promote M2C instead of providing a factual background for people to make informed decisions.

They don’t inform readers about, let alone deal with, Lucy Mack Smith’s recollection that Joseph told her it was Moroni who identified Cumorah the first time they met; her recollection that Joseph referred to the hill as Cumorah before he even obtained the plates; Moroni telling Joseph that the record “was written and deposited not far from” Joseph’s home in Palmyra; Martin Harris referring to the hill as Cumorah before the Book of Mormon was published; Oliver stating it was a fact that the final battles took place at the New York site; that Joseph wrote D&C 128:20 in 1842 in the context of the New York Cumorah (Letter VII had been republished by Joseph’s brother Don Carlos in the Times and Seasons just the year before, and was republished again in 1844 by Joseph’s brother William in the NY Mormon newspaper called The Prophet); or that all of Joseph’s contemporaries and successors who ever addressed the topic reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, while none have repudiated those teachings.

Instead of informing readers about the archaeological and anthropological evidence that supports the New York Cumorah, they cite a list of fanciful “requirements” for Cumorah that appear nowhere in the text but are designed to promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).

Maybe, with their new editorial direction, FAIR will edit this entry to present a variety of faithful views so readers can make informed decisions. We’ll see.

Hope springs eternal.

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Reframing Lucy Mack Smith, Cumorah, and credibility

The ongoing confusion about Church history and Book of Mormon historicity/geography is destructive to faith. We see this in surveys of Church members in which fewer than half of millennials believe the Book of Mormon is an actual history. Rejecting Joseph Smith’s testimony about the historicity of the Book of Mormon and his translation of the engravings on the plates does not help build faith.
The confusion could be resolved by reframing our approach.
Instead of rejecting what Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries wrote, including Joseph’s mother Lucy Mack Smith, what if we decided to accept what they wrote?
Instead of reading Mesoamerican culture and geography into the Book of Mormon text, what if we started with what Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries taught and built on that?

The most obvious reframing involves Cumorah. 

If Moroni actually identified the hill in New York as Cumorah as the early sources claim; if the repository of Nephite records was in that hill as the early sources claim; and if the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place there as the early sources claim, then why not (as at least one of multiple operating hypotheses) build on those sources?
This reframing would change our interpretation of the text. Instead of millions of Nephites, we’d have tens of thousands. Instead of massive stone pyramids made of stone and cement, we’d have structures made of wood and cement (as the text describes), along with banks of earth, etc. Instead of claiming that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who, along with their successors, misled the Church about Cumorah, we could corroborate and support what they taught with archaeology, anthropology, etc.
_____

One place to start reframing is with Lucy Mack Smith’s account. On my LetterVII blog recently, we discussed Lucy Mack Smith’s description of Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith. 

http://www.lettervii.com/2021/02/remove-grass-and-moss-occams-razor.html

There, I pointed out that Lucy Mack Smith dictated a little-known account of what Moroni told Joseph Smith, including the identification of Cumorah. 

If we accept Lucy’s account, then we know the origin of the New York Cumorah narrative. 

It came from Moroni himself.

Church historians and M2C scholars (essentially the same thing) avoid this account because it contradicts their narrative that the identification of Cumorah was a late invention by unknown early Church members. 

Some of these scholars justify omitting Lucy’s account because they question her reliability and credibility. That’s outcome-oriented thinking, purely to accommodate M2C. Thinks about it: Lucy’s account is so credible that Saints, volume 1, cites Lucy’s history 127 times. 

Here is page 11 of Saints, volume 1. Notice note 22.

Note 22 cites Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–45, book 3, [8]–[10]. You can see this online at the Joseph Smith Papers here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/40


Lucy’s explanation of Cumorah is found on the very next page of Lucy’s history. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–45, book 3, [11]. You can see this online at the Joseph Smith Papers here: 


And yet, the creators of Saints omitted the reference to Cumorah and later, to justify their revision of Church history to censor Cumorah, claimed they never noticed it, as we discussed here.

Here’s what Lucy dictated.

[Moroni, after telling Joseph about the record, said] but you cannot get it until you learn to keep the commandments of God For it is not to get gain. But it is to bring forth that light and intelligence which has been long lost in the Earth 

Now Joseph beware or when you go to get the plates your mind will be filled with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind. To prevent you from keeping the commandments of God that you may not succeed in doing his work and you must tell your father of this for he will believe every word you say.

The record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place. Remove the grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him. [editing marks removed]

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41

In my Letter VII post, I pointed out that Lucy’s description of what Moroni told Joseph is highly credible because of the detail and description it contains. She explained that Moroni referred to the hill by name and specified its location. Moroni told Joseph he’d have to remove the grass and moss, which is a significant detail because it helps explain why the stone had not been removed in the centuries since Moroni first put it over the stone box.

_____

There’s another important reason why Lucy’s account is credible.

Some scholars reject what Lucy wrote because she seemed to conflate the first vision with Moroni’s visit. 

But that’s the opposite conclusion that follows from the facts.

It’s true that, if you read Lucy’s account, it looks as though she is conflating the two accounts (see her account below, without the editing marks).

What Lucy dictated is the opposite of what she would have dictated if she was conflating memories with modern developments. By 1844-5, Joseph’s account of the First Vision was well know. What is now Joseph Smith-History had been published in the Times and Seasons in 1842. If Lucy was incorporating more modern events (such as the New York Cumorah) into her history, as the M2C scholars claim, then she surely would have incorporated Joseph’s formal description of the First Vision. 

In fact, in the 1845 version of Lucy’s history, created by the Corays from Lucy’s original version plus additional material (see the historical introduction), the Corays (without explanation) actually replaced Lucy’s account by incorporating the History of Joseph Smith that was published in the Times and Seasons. 

This indicates that Lucy’s reported what she remembered, not what people wanted or expected her to remember.

There is no indication that Joseph told his mother specifically about the First Vision prior to the visit of Moroni. In his 1832 history, Joseph wrote that he “could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart about that time my mother and20.”  

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/3

Note 20 reads, “This canceled fragment may refer to the Presbyterian affiliation of JS’s mother and three of his siblings.”

When Joseph described Moroni’s visit, he said “he called me by name and he said the Lord had forgiven me my sins and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers.” 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/4

That is consistent with what Lucy dictated.

To repeat: If we accepted Lucy’s account, then we know the origin of the New York Cumorah narrative. 

It came from Moroni himself.

Lucy’s original dictation:

One evening we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the subject of the diversity of churches that had risen up in the world and the many thousand opinions in existence as to the truths contained in scripture Joseph never said many words upon any subject but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious nature 

After we ceased conversation he went to bed and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one. but he had not laid there long till he saw a bright light enter the room where he lay he looked up and saw an angel of the Lord standing by him 

The angel spoke I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is the true church there is not a true church on Earth No not one and has not been since Peter took the Keys of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God into the Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches. 

There is a record for you and Joseph but you cannot get it untill you learn to keep the commandments of God For it is not to get gain. But it is to bring forth that light and intelligence which has been long lost in the Earth Now Joseph beware or when you go to get the plates your mind will be filld with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind. To prevent you from keeping the commandments of God that you may not suceced in doing his work and you must tell your father of this for he will believe every word you say the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him

The next day he and his father Alvin [Smith] were reaping in the field togather sudenly Joseph stopped and seemed to be in a deep Study for some time Alvin hurried him saying Joseph we must keep to work or we shall not get our task done Joseph worked again dilligently then stopped in the same way a second time when his father Saw that he was very pale and urged him to go to the house and tell his mother that he was sick he went a short distance till he came to a green sward under an apple tree here he lay down on his face for he was so weak he could go no farther. *

The personage whom he saw the night before came to him again and said why did you not tell your father what I told you Joseph said he was affraid his father would not believe him he will said the angel believe every word you say to him he then told when you get the record take it immediately into the house and lock it up as soon as possible and let no one see it till it is translated and then show it to such as the Lord chooses as a witness to the world



Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Translation and "anachronisms"

In the Wentworth letter, Joseph Smith declared that “With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.”

(Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶5–6)
We might think this is one basic idea believers in the Book of Mormon could unite around. 
Certainly during Joseph’s lifetime, people did unite on this issue.
But not lately.
Intellectuals in the Church are telling us that Joseph didn’t really use the Urim and Thummim, didn’t really use the plates, and didn’t really translate anything. Instead, according to them, Joseph merely read words that appeared on a seer stone he put in a hat (or read words that appeared in vision). They’re trying to persuade us that the “actual translator” was some unknown supernatural being who, inexplicably, used Early Modern English combined with early 1800s expressions, complete with anachronisms that critics have long claimed are evidence of 19th century composition.
Nevertheless, many of us Latter-day Saints still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation.
Some critics claim that dictating a text from a vision (or from words that appeared on a stone) is equivalent to a composition, and this explains the anachronisms.
It shouldn’t be difficult for critics (and the LDS intellectuals who agree with them) to understand that the same evidence they cite to show modern composition is also evidence of modern translation. 
Every translator draws from the words, phrases, and concepts in his/her own mind. A translator could do nothing else. I call this the mental language bank, an analogy to the way banks work. We can only withdraw from a bank account the money that we first deposited. That’s why, as we learn new vocabulary and concepts, we can incorporate them into our own expressions. 
It’s a simple concept that corroborates Joseph’s claim that he translated the plates.
_____
Related to that is the purpose for anachronisms; i.e., a translator seeks to make the original material accessible to his/her contemporaries. 
I doubt anyone believes that Nephites between 600 BC and 400 AD spoke (or thought) in King James English. If the Book of Mormon were re-translated today, it would surely read much differently than the way Joseph translated it in 1829. 
Brigham Young explained that the scriptures reflect the language of the prophets through whom they are revealed.
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiffnecked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiffnecked, the Lord can tell them but little. (emphasis added)[1]
[1] Brigham Young, “The Kingdom of God,” JD 9:311, July 13, 1862 
_____
A good example of this is the way artists have depicted Biblical events in their own cultural context. 
Here’s an example from circa 1603, when Caravaggio depicted the “Sacrifice of Isaac.”

A commentator noted that “In the background is a hilly, Mediterranean landscape, with small roads and farm animals, and a small village…. In the past, this work has also been subject to a symbolic interpretation according to which the building on the hill is a church with baptistery, a reference to the future birth of the Catholic church, while the light diffused over the backdrop, symbolises the light of divine grace.” 
Another example is The Calling of Saint Matthew, also by Caravaggio  (1599-1600), now in the
Contarelli Chapel, Church of San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome.

Here, Christ calls Saint Matthew to be an apostle, but instead of ancient Palestine, the scene is set in a 17th century Roman tavern. This anachronism presumably made the event more relatable to viewers in Caravaggio’s day.
Based on his own testimony and surrounding circumstances, we can see that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon “after the manner of his language,” drawing on the Christian vocabulary, phrases and concepts he had learned his entire life. He translated the ancient plates in a manner that made it accessible and understandable to his contemporaries.
What about this is so difficult to understand and accept?

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Narrow neck of land

Many of our ideas are encrusted with old ideas that we inherited without thinking them through. Taking a fresh look at the language of the scriptures can provide new insights.
Such a fresh look leads to the development of multiple working hypotheses, which in turn can lead to unity about the question of historicity and geography. People may not agree on the specifics, but they should be able to agree that alternative approaches are feasible and reasonable.
That’s all we can ask. 
But it’s not what our scholars are permitting, especially the scholars at Book of Mormon Central who continue to ban and criticize any working hypothesis other than the one they’ve been teaching for decades. They’ve welded M2C into their very logo.
_____

People who discuss Book of Mormon historicity and geography often focus on the “narrow neck of land,” as if it is the critical element of the geography. When I point out that that term appears only once in the text (Ether 10:20), people usually don’t believe me. But then they check for themselves and discover it’s true. (There is also a “narrow neck” and a “small neck of land,” which some people conflate to refer to the same thing as the “narrow neck of land,” as if different terms mean the same thing, which I’ll discuss below.)

Years ago, Andrew Hedges pointed out that the Mesoamerican setting requires its proponents to accept as a “narrow neck of land” a crossing that is several times wider than the “narrower” neck in the Isthmus of Panama.
https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-9-no-3-2008/narrow-neck-land

In the early days of the Church, Parley and Orson Pratt claimed Panama was the “narrow neck of land.” That reflected the common knowledge of the day, as shown by Alexander von Humboldt, whose 1811 book Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain was on sale in Palmyra in 1818 at the printing shop Joseph visited weekly to get the newspaper for his father.
Three times in that book, Humboldt referred to the isthmus of Panama as a “neck of land.” But Humboldt did not refer to it as a “narrow neck.”
It’s difficult to imagine that anyone on the ground would refer to Panama as a “narrow neck.” If you’ve traversed the Panama Canal, as I have, you know it “narrow” only in the sense that, looking at a map or from space, it appears “narrow” compared with the rest of the continent.

Usage in Joseph’s day.
One usage of the term “narrow neck of land” that was common in Joseph’s day is found in a hymn by John Wesley. 

Lo! on a narrow neck of land
‘Twixt two unbounded seas I stand,
Secure, insensible;
A point of time, a moment’s space
Removes me to that heavenly place,
Or shuts me up in hell.
Hymn LVIII, A Collection of Hymns for the use of the people called Methodists, (London 1786) p. 62.

The inspiration for this stanza has generated some speculation, as shown in this discussion in an 1860 lecture on Wesley. The author wrote

The Rev. Dr. Hannah has favoured me with the following note: “I am inclined to think that the sublime stanza which begins,
“Lo, on a narrow neck of land,”
is a magnificent paraphrase of a thought which occurs in different writers not unknown to Charles Wesley. I give two instances: –‘Many witty authors compare the present time to an isthmus, or narrow neck of land, that rises in the midst of an ocean, immeasureably [sic] diffused on either side of it.’ (Spectator, No. 590.) –‘We are here in a state of probation, situated, as it were, upon a neck of land with the two infinite oceans of a miserable and happy eternity on either hand of us.’ (Horbery’s Sermons, IV., Part II., on Acts iv.12. –Horbery was born 1707, died 1773.)”

The coincidence is certainly very remarkable, and the stanza may have been so suggested. Charles Wesley was in the habit, as the reader will find in subsequent part of the Lecture, of paraphrasing other men’s thoughts after this fashion. But I cling to the old Tradition, which was in existence during the Poet’s life-time,–that the Land’s End suggested the imagery. The Hymn, which is called “An Hymn for Seriousness,” was written and published very soon after Charles Wesley’s first visit to that remarkable spot.

Land’s End is the most south-westerly point of Cornwall in England. (see map diagram)

It’s a long peninsula. Wesley referring to this peninsula as a “narrow neck of land” in a well-known hymn opens further possibilities for understanding the Book of Mormon text.
_____
An 1776 book titled The Practical Navigator defined the terms this way:
A Peninsula is a Part of Land almost surrounded with Water, save one narrow Neck of Land which joins the same to the Continent.
An Isthmus is a narrow Neck of Land joining the Peninsula to the Continent, by which People may pass from one to the other.
Another source, the 1785 Geographical Magazine, points out that a narrow neck could be land or water. With that in mind, it makes sense that Ether 10:20 specifies a “narrow neck of land.”
A Strait is a narrow neck of water, uniting one sea to another; as, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Caffa, etc. 
A Sea is a portion of water everywhere inclosed [sic] with land, except a narrow space or neck which unites it to the ocean; as, the Mediterranean Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Red Sea, etc.
An Isthmus is a narrow neck of land, by which a peninsula is united to a continent; as, the Isthmus of Darien, the Isthmus of Corinth, etc.
A Peninsula is a portion of land, every where surrounded with water, except a narrow space or neck of land, which unites it to the continent; as, the Morea, which joined to Greece; Crim Tartary, to Little Tartary, etc.

Multiple terms and translations.

In addition to the “narrow neck of land,” there is a “neck of land” and a “small neck of land.”  

M2C proponents always conflate the terms narrow neck, narrow neck of land, and small neck. I think they are different terms because they refer to different things. 

narrow neck: a narrow feature between larger bodies of either land or water

narrow neck of land: an isthmus or connection between continents, or a connection between any two land masses, or a long narrow peninsula (as Wesley used it).

small neck of land: connotation suggests small in all directions, contrasted with narrow which connotes relatively long compared to width.

It’s also interesting that that the translation of these terms into other languages has, in some cases, removed the distinction.

Those who don’t read English are reading the M2C interpretation, not the text Joseph translated.

Examples.

Alma 22:32 reads:

thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

In French, the passage is translated like this:

c’est ainsi que le pays de Néphi et le pays de Zarahemla étaient presque entourés d’eau, une étroite bande de terre existant entre le pays situé du côté du nord et le pays situé du côté du sud.

Alma 63:5 reads:

therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

In French, it reads:

s’en fut construire un navire extrêmement grand dans les régions frontières du pays d’Abondance, près du pays de Désolation, et le lança dans la mer de l’ouest, près de la langue étroite qui menait au pays situé du côté du nord.

Ether 10:20 reads:

20 And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.

In French, it is:

20 Et ils construisirent une grande ville près de la langue étroite de terre, près de l’endroit où la mer divise le pays.

If you don’t read French, you can see that in all three cases, the French uses the term étroite, which means “narrow.” You don’t get the English distinction between “small” and “narrow.” The M2C intellectuals say the terms are synonymous. That’s possible, but they have different connotations that are lost in the French translation.

Again, these are examples of an interpretation, not a translation.

Joseph (or Mormon/Moroni) used different terms. Why should the foreign translations use the same terms?

The French does use “bande” instead of “langue” here, which is an interesting choice. “Langue” means “tongue” or “language,” but “langue de terre” means a “spit of land.” Like a tongue, a spit of land is “a small point of land especially of sand or gravel running into a body of water.”

“Bande” means a “strip” or “stripe.”

Instead of a “small neck of land” we have a “narrow strip of land.”

Instead of a “narrow neck” we have “a narrow tongue.” A neck connects two bodies of water or earth, but a tongue extends from one without joining to another. This is a problem for any proposed geography.

In Alma 63:5, “by the narrow neck” becomes “near the narrow neck.” This, too, loses the possible alternative meanings of the phrase, such as “through the narrow neck,” “by means of,” or “in the vicinity of the narrow neck.”

_____

Be careful any time you read an interpretation of the Book of Mormon that insists only one possibility is feasible, or, worse, “correct.”

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Reaching consensus with incomplete facts?

One way to reach consensus should be to at least have everyone deal with the same facts, including all the relevant facts, so we can all make informed decisions. That seems axiomatic, but it’s not the situation we face.

It’s one thing to consider alternative interpretations of the facts, but it’s entirely different to consider alternative interpretations based on different facts. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to reach consensus on any topic when we can’t all use the same facts. 

For example, on the issue of Cumorah, most Latter-day Saints don’t even know that Lucy Mack Smith reported that during his first visit to Joseph Smith, Moroni identified the hill where the plates were as “Cumorah.” This explains all the other references to Cumorah in early Church history. But people don’t know about it because our scholars have decided that Cumorah should be erased from the historical record, as it was in the Saints book, volume 1.

We have a similar situation with the translation issue. It continues to amaze me that the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon translation has not been corrected.

The contrast with another essay, written in 1996 by Delbert D. Smith (link below), is stark.

The Gospel Topics Essay concludes that Joseph didn’t really translate anything but just read words that appeared on a stone in a hat. 

The other essay, which actually quotes what Joseph and Oliver said, concludes Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

See for yourself.

_____

The Gospel Topics Essay is found here:

Book of Mormon Translation (churchofjesuschrist.org)

The essay doesn’t even quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation. Instead, it quotes and cites everyone else, including the scholars who apparently wrote the essay.

For example, the essay quotes from Joseph Smith-History, Note 1, here:

Of his experience as scribe, Cowdery wrote, “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven.”7

That fits with the theory that Joseph never actually translated anything, but instead merely read words that appeared on the seer stone in the hat (or that he saw in vision).

Now, look at what the essay omits (the part in bold below).

“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

(Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

By omitting Oliver’s specific statement that Joseph “translated with the Urim and Thummim,” the essay misleads readers into concluding Joseph never actually translated anything but merely read words off a seer stone.
Worse, the essay proceeds to falsely attribute to Joseph Smith the claim that he produced the Book of Mormon with a seer stone.
Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. 

The essay gives no example (and I know of none) of Joseph “writing” of “two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon.” Nor are there any such statements from Oliver Cowdery or John or Christian Whitmer, the only people whose handwriting appears on the part of the Original Manuscript we now have.
Every statement we do have from Joseph and Oliver affirm that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim. But none of those statements are quoted in the essay.
Instead of quoting Joseph and his scribes, as promised, the essay quotes “witnesses of the translation.” But these are people who were not scribes for the Book of Mormon we have now (except probably Emma, assuming she wrote part or all of Mosiah and part of 2 Nephi, for which the Original Manuscript does not exist).

According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates.16 

The only basis for claiming that these people were “witnesses of the translation” was their own claim that they witnessed a translation. None of them recorded what Joseph actually dictated during the event. None of them quoted Joseph saying he was translation. 

The evidence leads me to conclude that they witnessed a demonstration, not the actual translation, but that’s not the point here.

The point: this “Gospel Topics Essay” doesn’t quote what Joseph and Oliver said, let alone accept what they said.

Here’s an incredible example:

As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19 As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.20

This states as fact the mere speculations of scholars, as you can see in the footnotes. Assuming Joseph wrote the answer in the Elder’s Journal, he said he was paid to dig for money, not that he “used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.”

Then, look at this passage in the essay:

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.21

The word “apparently” applies only to “for convenience” and “interchangeable,” as if it is a given fact that “Joseph often translated with the single seer stone.” 

Then, look at this one:

Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.

“Seem to have understood” is pure academic speculation that contradicts the plain words Joseph and Oliver used. Plus, it contradicts the narrative in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. None of these passages are quoted in the essay.

those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim (Doctrine and Covenants 10:1)

Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book. (Joseph Smith—History 1:35)
immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them,
(Joseph Smith—History 1:62)
If anything, Latter-day Saints later came to understand the term to apply to both instruments purely because modern revisionist historians have interpreted the evidence that way. But when Oliver wrote the essay that is excerpted in Joseph Smith-History, Note 1, he was responding to Mormonism Unvailed, which clearly distinguished between the “peep stone” and the Urim and Thummim as alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon. 

To now say that Oliver meant to say that Joseph used both the “peep stone” and the Nephite interpreters defies the plain language he and Joseph always used.

Look at this paragraph:

In the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith wrote: “I would inform you that I translated [the book], by the gift and power of God.” When pressed for specifics about the process of translation, Joseph repeated on several occasions that it had been done “by the gift and power of God”24 and once added, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”25

You might wonder why they quoted the preface to the 1830 edition that was deleted from subsequent editions. That’s because Joseph didn’t mention the Urim and Thummim on that one occasion. 

Other times when he or Oliver wrote or spoke about the translation, they did mention the Urim and Thummim, but you would never know that from this essay (or from the Saints book, volume 1). You can see these examples in the Delbert Smith essay below, but here’s an example from the well-known Wentworth letter:

“Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-march-1842/5

An editorial in the Times and Seasons mentioned what an LDS missionary taught in 1842. “the Book of Mormon had come forth as an “ensign to the nations,” containing an account of the gospel in much plainness, being translated by the gift and power of God by the use of the Urim and Thummim, that had come forth with the plates that contain the record.” 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-september-1842/6

Fortunately, the essay does at least include two accounts of what Oliver taught.

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.”31 In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”32

Both of those describe the Urim and Thummim, although the essay doesn’t acknowledge that. 

However, omitting the relevant portion from Joseph Smith-History, Note 1, as well as Oliver’s testimony when he returned to the Church, leaves readers ignorant of what Oliver actually taught about the Urim and Thummim.

_____

By contrast, here’s an analysis of the translation that focuses on what Joseph and Oliver actually said. It concludes that Joseph actually translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

https://nebula.wsimg.com/98ba68c3cdab037ea56b9b6ad99c15a3?AccessKeyId=AA525AED21BB7CA23BE6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

opening a new system

 Fascinating observation here:

Here’s another of his teachings, and it explains a lot:

“From the journal of Oliver B. Huntington, referring to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I heard him say that he hoped the spirit of invention and improvement would rest upon the Saints, as it was upon the Gentiles, for unless it did there would many useful and important inventions be lost to the world when the great destruction of nations comes. It would then probably take hundreds of years to reproduce them again among men; yes, and perhaps thousands of years before they would get back upon the earth.

It has been and will be the case that a man who develops or opens a new system for the benefit of his fellow man or mankind will meet with the opposition and enmity of the very people he is seeking to bless and improve. “It is the same,” he said, “with men whom God inspires to make inventions, improvements and discoveries for the improvement of man generally, geographically or classic. They will be opposed and persecuted by the ones their works are designed to benefit and bless. Satan will oppose everything that God introduces among men for the purpose of elevating and improving His children.”

Oliver B. Huntington, “Sayings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Young Woman’s Journal 4, no. 7 (April 1893): 321.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

The happiest people

Great reminder for people of all ages:

 President Ballard promised the commenter, and all the young adults, that the Lord would see them through whatever challenges are ahead of them.

“I look at every day as a great new challenge, a great new opportunity to do something worthwhile. I think you just lock in your minds to do the best you can. The Lord doesn’t expect you to be superhuman, Superman, Superwoman. He just wants you to be good. He wants you to be kind with each other.”

The happiest people are the people who take life a day at a time, said President Ballad, promising the young people that this is a time of preparation. “Look for something every day that will teach you something that will make you better for tomorrow,” he said.

Concluding he asked the congregation to love the gospel. “Love being a member of the Church. Love the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart. Look to heaven for guidance. Trust in the promptings of the Spirit.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-03-08/president-ballard-sister-eubank-elder-nielson-promise-a-future-filled-with-hope-and-light-206086

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

A Mighty Nation – an example of bias confirmation

From time to time we like to look at examples of bias confirmation. By now, it is obvious to readers here that people can confirm pretty much any bias they have. They usually frame it as “following the evidence” and they usually believe that’s the case. 

Of course, any two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach contradictory conclusions. That’s why it’s more important to understand the bias people are confirming than to debate the merits of the evidence.

This example involves the “mighty nation” mentioned in 1 Nephi 22:7.

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered. (1 Nephi 22:7)

The term appears just once in the Book of Mormon. It appears twice in the Bible, in Genesis 18:18 (“Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation”) and Jeremiah 5:15 (Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation”).
Some think the Book of Mormon “mighty nation” is the United States. Others think it is Spain. Let’s look at the arguments so you can make an informed decision.
_____
The argument for Spain as the “mighty nation” has been made by Kirk Magleby of Book of Mormon Central, here: http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2020/09/mighty-nation-spain.html. Kirk is a fine scholar, great guy, and effective writer. He has a strong bias in favor of M2C. 
Although I shared his bias for decades, I no longer do. Instead, I have a bias in favor of the North American setting. One of the reasons I changed my mind is the type of comparative merits of the two alternatives we’ll look here.
Let’s see what he has to say.
His words in blue. My comments in red. Emphasis mine.
Mighty Nation = Spain

In December, 2018, I authored an important blog post entitled “Prophecy Fulfilled 016” identifying the mighty nation among the Gentiles described in 1 Nephi 22:7 as Spain. The article explained the historical succession of Spain/France/England as global superpower and interpreted 1 Nephi 13:30 in that light.

The first thing that jumps out is the disconnect between 1 Ne. 22:7 and any foreign nation.

The “mighty nation” was supposed to be raised up “upon the face of this land.” Nephi was writing from the New World, not from Europe. Thus, we should be looking for a “mighty nation” that God would “raise up” upon the face of the New World. 

Spain/France/England were all European countries. They were not “raised up” in the New World.

By contrast, the United States adopted the Constitution in 1789. The Lord explained, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80)
Between 1808 and 1826, the continental colonies in the Americas became independent of Spain and Portugal. Mexico became independent in 1821. These countries were all “raised up” in the western hemisphere, and so are candidates for the “mighty nation.” 

All of this assumes that “nation” refers to a political entity. Originally, the term referred to a family or group who descended from a common progenitor, like a tribe.
_____

It’s also interesting to note that in Joseph’s environment, the United States was referred to as a “mighty nation.” For example, an article in the Wayne Sentinel from March 23, 1825, said, “That the policy of our country is peace, and the ark of our salvation union, are articles of faith upon which we are all now agreed. If there have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and order management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled.”

In 1843, Joseph Smith read a speech that included statements from Choctaw Indians, east of the Mississippi, including this passage:

“Brother: You stand in the moccasins of a great chief; you speak the words of a mighty nation, and your talk was long. My people are small; their shadow scarcely reaches to your knee; they are scattered and gone; when I shout, I hear my voice in the depths of the woods, but no answering shouts come back.”


More examples are included below, as well as statements from LDS General Authorities identifying the United States as a “mighty nation.”
_____

Chronology clinches the identification of Spain as the mighty nation. 

Clinch means to confirm or settle. That means no further analysis or discussion is warranted. That’s like the logo of Book of Mormon Central, which uses a Mayan glyph to represent the Book of Mormon because, in their view, the geography is settled (contrary to the Church’s own position and contrary to the beliefs of many Latter-day Saints).

The term clinch contradicts the approach of multiple working hypotheses, so as far as I’m concerned, it does not end the discussion. Let’s continue.

What did the mighty nation do? They scattered Lehi’s descendants 1 Nephi 22:7. 

Scatter means to “separate and move off quickly in different directions.” The Mayans and other indigenous people throughout Latin America today still live where they’ve lived throughout history (aside from moving to modern cities). The Spanish conquered indigenous people and moved some into cities, but by and large they retained their ancestral lands. Whether that constitutes a scattering depends on one’s own interpretation.

In North America, there was a similar pattern of conquering and subduing. The U.S. established the first Native American reservation in 1786, but settlers constantly pushed the Indians off their lands. President James Monroe took office in 1817 and entered a series of treaties, effectively removing most Indians from states north of the Ohio River. By 1825, he recommended all remaining Indians be relocated to west of the Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 expressly relocated indigenous tribes hundreds of miles away from their ancestral lands, never to return.  

When was Lehi’s seed scattered? Before the marvelous work among the Gentiles began 1 Nephi 22:8.

1 Nephi 22:8 And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders.

Note that the passage is vague about timing and does not say “after all our seed is completely scattered,” nor does it preclude additional scattering.

The passage also does not specify when the marvelous work would begin. 
What was the marvelous work? The coming forth of the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 25:17, 27:26 was a major part of it.
The publication of the Book of Mormon by itself does not satisfy the point of the verse. The first effort to nourish the Indians was the “mission to the Lamanites” which began in October 1830.

Key dates associated with the modern Book of Mormon include:

December 23, 1805 Joseph Smith, Jr. was born
September 21, 1823 Angel Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr.
March 26, 1830 Book of Mormon went on sale to the public 

All good, but still none of these events directly involved nourishing Native Americans. That effort didn’t begin until October 1830.

So, the mighty nation, pre-eminent among all others in the New World, scattered Lehi’s posterity prior to the 1805 – 1830 time frame. 

As we discussed above, the “mighty nation” was “raised up” upon the face of the New World. It was not an old nation raised up elsewhere. 

It’s an interesting question whether Mexico, post independence, scattered the indigenous inhabitants, or whether Peru, Chile, or any other of the newly independent nations did so. I don’t know the answer. But it’s clear that the United States, after it was raised up on the face of the New World, did scatter the Indians.

The various Latin American nations gained their independence from Spain between 1810 and 1825. From 1500 – 1810, Spain scattered Lehi’s children and appropriated native American lands from California to Argentina.

This is a repeat of the same problem that Spain was not raised up in the New World, but the problem extends beyond that.

The Spanish held little of the land they claimed in North America (above Mexico). Their presence consisted mainly of missions run by Catholic priests. There were some skirmishes between Spanish military and Indian tribes, but no tribes were scattered. 


The map is a little misleading because France controlled the Louisiana territory from 1699-1762, when it was ceded to Spain. In 1800, France took it back before selling it to the U.S. in 1803. But even when France “owned” the territory, it controlled very little of it, just as Spain controlled very little of the west. These areas of North America were inhabited by Native Americans with little interference from Spain, apart from attempts at religious conversions.

During those 300 years preceding the marvelous work of the restoration, no other nation came close to the level of influence Spain exercised in the Western Hemisphere.


The double fallacy here is that (i) Spain wasn’t “raised up” in the New World and (ii) we cannot say from the text where Nephi’s seed lived. The text doesn’t even mention the Western Hemisphere. For that identification, we have to rely on Joseph Smith and the D&C, but both of those sources specifically identified the Indians from New York to Kansas as the Lamanites.

What we can tell is that the first mission to the Lamanites, the first fulfillment of D&C 22:7, started in October 1830 as Oliver Cowdery and three others took the Book of Mormon to the Indian tribes of New York, Ohio, and Missouri/Kansas, where they had been scattered from their ancestral lands.

Soon after this article was published, I was delighted that a friend, Bruce Webster, shared his 2013 blog post with me. He reached the same conclusion that 1 Nephi 22:7 refers to the Spanish Empire.

_____

Bruce Webster’s post is here:

http://adventures-in-mormonism.com/2013/08/19/1-nephi-227-a-mighty-nation-the-spanish-empire/

He also ignores the point that the mighty nation was to be raised up in the New World.

The US really didn’t become a “mighty nation” until the late 19th or early 20th Century. Spain, on the other hand, established a global empire pretty much coinciding with the discovery (by Spain) of North and South America at the end of the 15th Century, and it remained a mighty nation well into the 19th Century.

Spain conquered and claimed half of North America, all of Central America, and most of South America, in the process killing, enslaving, and scattering many of the native American inhabitants. The US, at the time of publication of the Book of Mormon, occupied less than half of its current extent and really hadn’t done much “scattering” of native Americans compared to what Spain had done for the previous 240 years.

I don’t know how to quantify who did more “scattering,” but even today, the tribes in the U.S. live largely on reservations far from their ancestral lands, while indigenous people in Latin America occupy their ancestral lands.

For that matter, much of the “scattering” of native Americans that happened in the eastern half of the United States happened under British rule (see “British Territory” on the map above), before the US was founded.

This would be a good point if it was true.

And, somewhat redundantly, the US never occupied Mesoamerica, which is where Book of Mormon events most likely occurred.

This is the bottom line for both Bruce and Kirk. And yet, Joseph Smith failed to take the Book of Mormon to Nephi’s descendants in Mesoamerica. Instead, he took it personally to the entirely distinct Native Americans he (and the Lord) called Lamanites, as explained in D&C 28, 30, 32, and elsewhere.

_____

Some references to the United States as a “mighty nation” follow:

The Book of Mormon prophecies concerning the future of America have been referred to in our hearing during this conference, wherein it is stated that this nation, though it becomes a mighty nation, still it can stand in security here only as it serves the God of this land. That conception was in the hearts of the men who rounded America.

(1920s, 1928, October, 5th Session, Elder Melvin J. Ballard, ¶17 • CR)

 believe America to be a Christian country. I believe the principles which are set forth in her fundamental laws to be derived from, consciously, the Savior of the world. His precepts, his principles of truth and living, have been set forth by the founders and the fathers in our laws and statutes; and America, in order to continuously and satisfactorily fill her great mission as a mighty nation, must conform to those fundamental laws and principles of truth, in my humble judgment.

(1920s, 1924, October, 4th Session, Elder Stephen L Richards, ¶10 • CR)

America was independent.

Here then a great and magnificent spectacle breaks in upon the view. A mighty nation rising in arms to recover her natural rights, and boldly [Page 9] braving the storm of regal ambition.

(18c: 1790s; 1796, N22677 / 2. AN ORATION, Paul Allen, Providence, July 5, 1796,8¶–9¶)

The battle of the European warriors is indeed with a confused noise. It is the bruit of a war, which originated, on the one hand, in the too sanguine hope of planting the tree of liberty in every clime, and is prosecuted, on the other, with an unwarrantable acrimony against a mighty nation, struggling to be free, if not in direct repugnance to the natural rights of mankind, and the laws of eternal justice. If, in this huge contest between the sentiments of equal liberty, and the unnatural systems of arbitary power, the latter should prevail, America, in tears, will behold the triumph.

(18c: 1790s; 1794, N20534 / 1. ON THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE, Harvard, July 4, 1794, William Emerson,33¶)

Of all the injuries done us, none ought to be so quickly resented, or so severely punished, [Page 23] as an injury done to our country. The interests of our country, not only comprise our own, but the interests of a growing and mighty nation; the man, therefore, who seeks to injure his country, is guilty of the blood of millions.

(18c: 1790s; 1798, N26355 / 1. AMERICAN LIBERTY, Discourse in Watertown on July 4th 1798, by Rev. Israel B. Woodward,37¶)

The retiring President retained the full health and strength, the vigor and activity of a strong body and sound mind, equal to the functions of his elevation, and fitted to relish the fascinating charms of his grandeur. But these were not the motives for his consenting to appear at the head of a mighty nation▪ When his country could spare his agency, no inducement remained with him to continue in her service, and he resolved once more, “to pass the remainder of his days in honorable repose, and place his glory beyond the reach of fortune.”

(18c: 1790s; 1800, N27614 / 1. A Discourse in Baltimore, Feb. 22, 1800 by Rev. Patrick Allison, &c.,21¶)

Calm reflection here performed the miracles of inspiration, and deliberate valor acquired the achievements of Gods. An empire happy, a mighty nation freed from tyranny. These are the glorious monuments of our revolution; these are the immortal trophies of which we boast.

(18c: 1790s; 1800, N28804 / LUTHER RICHARDSON, JULY 4, 1800. 1. AN ORATION.,6¶)

Source: About Central America

Uncategorized

Ten thousand

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, here are some thoughts about the term “ten thousand” as used in Mormon 6.

_____

Discussion of 10,000.
The term “ten thousand” appears in the scriptures in these frequencies:

In the Old Testament, it is used to mean a large, but inexact, number. 
8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
(Leviticus 26:8)
This couldn’t mean exactly 10,000. What if 100 of them put 9,999 to flight?
Here’s another figurative usage:
30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?
(Deuteronomy 32:30)
Here, it refers to a unit, not a precise, literal number.
10 ¶ And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.
(Judges 4:10)
Another example of a figurative usage:
11 ¶ And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led forth his people, and went to the valley of salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand.
12 And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.
(2 Chronicles 25:11–12)
There are similar examples in the New Testament.
31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
(Luke 14:31)
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
(1 Corinthians 4:15)
It doesn’t seem plausible that any military unit or other group would have exactly 10,000 people in it. Soldiers die, become sick, leave, etc. Adjusting the term for the unit every time the numbers changed would be unmanageable. You wouldn’t refer to the group as 9,999 when one soldier died. It’s a round number, not a precise count.
This is what we see in cultures around the world and throughout history; several languages have a term for “10,000” that means a large number or military unit. 
For that reason, I infer that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite term accurately, although the Nephites used it to refer to a unit, not a literal, exact number.
Here are some examples in the Book of Mormon.
28 And also there were sent two thousand men unto us from the land of Zarahemla. And thus we were prepared with ten thousand men, and provisions for them, and also for their wives and their children.
(Alma 56:28)
10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.
(Mormon 6:10)
Would Mormon have used a different term if he actually had 10,001 men? If he had 9,999? 9,500? 7,500? 
Surely not. And if the term means a unit instead of an exact count, it affects our interpretation of these passages.
12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.
13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.
14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.
15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each;
(Mormon 6:12–15)
_____
Biblical scholars have raised the issue about the Bible as well. Because the numbers given in Exodus seem unrealistically large (600,000 men fleeing Egypt, etc.), scholars have proposed the term was used for a unit or group. That debate continues. 
Here’s a quick summary:
SPECIAL TOPIC: THOUSAND (eleph)

The Hebrew word eleph means “thousand” (BDB 48, KB 59 II).  It is used in several senses in the OT.

1. a family unit, Jos. 22:14; Jdgs. 6:15; 1 Sam. 23:23; Zech. 9:7; 12:6

2. a military unit, Exod. 18:21,25; Deut. 1:15

3. a literal thousand, Gen. 20:16; Exod. 32:28

4. a symbolic number, Gen. 24:60; Exod. 20:6; 34:7; Deut. 7:9; Jer. 32:18

5. the Ugaritic cognate alluph means “chieftain,” Gen. 36:15

These different connotations cause modern interpreters to question the literalness of the numbers

1. of the exodus

2. of Israeli tribal military units

Here’s a paper that quantifies the alternatives.
A wikipedia entry makes an interesting point about the number 10,000:
Many languages have a specific word for this number: in Ancient Greek it is μύριοι (the etymological root of the word myriad in English), in Aramaic ܪܒܘܬܐ, in Hebrew רבבה [revava], in Chinese 萬/万 (Mandarin wàn, Cantonese maan6, Hokkien bān), in Japanese 万/萬 [man], in Khmer ម៉ឺន [meun], in Korean 만/萬 [man], in Russian тьма [t’ma], in Vietnamese vạn, in Thai หมื่น [meun], in Malayalam പതിനായിരം [patinayiram], and in Malagasy alina.[1] 

In many of these languages, it often denotes a very large but indefinite number.[
Given the widespread use of 10,000 to mean a large number, that would seem to be a natural use by the Nephites as well.
In English, we use the Greek word “myriad” to mean a countless or extremely great number, but in classical history it meant a unit of 10,000.
When I studied Greek, we read Xenophon’s book Anabasis, which recounts the history of the “ten thousand” mostly Greeks who invaded Persia. The name of the unit did not change with the number of soldiers. 
The wikipedia article explains the actual numbers of men involved: “When the Ten Thousand started their journey in 401 BC, Xenophon stated that they numbered around 10,400. At the time Xenophon left them two years later, their number had dwindled to just under 6,000.” 
And yet, Xenophon did not start referring to them as the “six thousand.”
Anonymous LDS scholars have observed this:
2. A Thousand May Not Actually Mean a Thousand

It is also possible that “ten thousand” represents a military unit and not an exact number of soldiers. In Hebrew, the word eleph can mean the literal number 1,000, but it can also mean a military squad. (Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 264; Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 153–159.) If this is the case, each military commander could simply have been in charge of 10 “squads” of unknown numbers, putting the number of casualties much lower than they might seem at first. (Other ancient cultures used terms like this as well. The Roman military unit “century” was also the word for 100, but these units often did not have 100 people in them. See Smith, “How Many Nephites?” 286.)
All of this means that the text is subject to multiple interpretations–multiple working hypotheses.
_____
One approach is to take the numbers literally; i.e., each group of “ten thousand” had exactly 10,000 men, not 9,999 or 10,001, and all 230,000 of them died at or near the Hill Cumorah. That has been a common interpretation over the years and has led people to search for archaeological evidence of a war involving hundreds of thousands of deaths (230,000 Nephites plus an equivalent number of Lamanites, so say 500,000). So far as I know, no such archaeological site has been found anywhere in the Americas.
Another approach is to take the numbers figuratively; i.e., each group of “ten thousand” was a military unit of uncertain numbers, or, alternatively, a generalized round number. In this case, we could look at Xenophon as an example. After two years of war, his “ten thousand” had been reduced to under 6,000. In the case of Cumorah, the final battle took place after many years of retreat and carnage. It’s anyone’s guess how many men in each unit would have died by the time they reached Cumorah, but one could still argue that all 23 units died there. Using Xenophon’s example, the number could be 6,000 times 23, or 138,000 Nephites. It could easily be more or fewer than that.
A third approach (the one I favor) also treats the phrase “ten thousand” as a military unit of unknown numbers, but makes a further distinction between the number of units Mormon said he could actually see from the top of Cumorah–two, his and Moroni’s–and the number of units he could not then see but could remember and reflect upon with the interjection, “Behold.” This means that 20,000 Nephites dying at Cumorah is on the high side. Using Xenophon’s example, it could be 12,000, plus 12,000 Lamanites, for a total of around 25,000.
We can infer, although the text does not say it, that there were more Lamanites attacking than Nephites defending. How many Lamanites were killed is also unknown. But we can reasonably infer that at least as many Lamanites died as Nephites, giving a number in the tens of thousands, but well below one hundred thousand. 
All of this means we are dealing with an unknown number of deaths at Cumorah, but most likely a number far lower than 230,000 Nephites. 
This is all another variable to consider when evaluating scientific evidence. 
Here’s how Oliver Cowdery described the situation from the perspective of Mormon, who knew the Jaredites had died at the spot and the Nephites were about to die there.
In this vale lie commingled, in one mass of ruin the ashes of thousands [of Jaredites], and in this vale was destined to consume the fair forms and vigerous systems of tens of thousands of the human race [Nephites and Lamanites]—blood mixed with blood, flesh with flesh, bones with bones and dust with dust!
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/92
In my view, this description matches the text. We have the death of thousands (but not even ten thousand) of Jaredites, and tens of thousands (but not even a hundred thousand) of Nephites and Lamanites.
Assessing scientific evidence for the death of, say, 25,000 men is significantly different from assessing scientific evidence for the death of 500,000 or more in one location.

Source: Letter VII